金剛仙論

10. Venerable Subhuti! Suppose there were as many kings of mountains, Mount Sumerus, as there are in the trichiliocosm, and so forth: This is the tenth scriptural passage in the Section on Severing Doubts.

The analogy of the trichiliocosm has already been presented four times. Although it has been cited many times in this way, it is not repetitive, because only the wording is similar while the meanings differ; therefore, these passages do not duplicate one another.

The reason it is presented again here in continuation is also that a doubt has arisen. What is this doubt? In the preceding scriptural passage, the four statements answering the doubt included three statements first clarifying that the bodhi of the Dharma-body is the nirvana of intrinsic purity, whose essence is perfect and complete, and is not a dharma attained through cultivation.

The final statement established that the Reward Buddha is the nirvana of skillful means: through cultivating all wholesome dharmas, the causal skillful means are fully perfected. Therefore, it is the functioning of the Dharma-body and is a dharma attained through cultivation. The intent of the objection is this: If the Dharma-body of the Dharma-nature is not attained through cultivation, then the body possessed by the Reward Buddha should likewise not necessarily be attained through cultivation.

Why? Because, as was clarified above in the Section on Comparison, one who accepts, upholds, reads, and recites this sutra relies upon the verbal teaching expounded by the speaker and accordingly cultivates until wholesome dharmas are complete, thereby realizing samyak-sambodhi. Yet within the realized dharma, the nature of the sounds constituting that scriptural teaching is empty; they arise and cease from thought-moment to thought-moment and do not possess the meaning of an accumulative cause that increases.

Their essence is indeterminate and they are not wholesome dharmas. Therefore, accepting and upholding the scriptural teaching cannot produce the wholesome qualities of the three kinds of wisdom. Since it does not produce the wholesome qualities of the three kinds of wisdom, it does not possess the meaning of a cause.

Since it does not possess the meaning of a cause, bodhi cannot be realized; how, then, can it be said that samyak-sambodhi is attained through all wholesome dharmas? For this reason, the analogy is given of the surpassing merit gained by giving in charity seven kinds of precious treasures as numerous as kings of mountains, Mount Sumerus, and so forth, in order to answer this doubt. It clarifies that a single verse of this prajnaparamita scriptural teaching, which manifests from within the realized dharma, is not indeterminate, but is capable of expounding the Dharma-body.

If one relies upon the sutra as the causal condition for cultivation, one can reveal the nature, realize the fruit, and attain great bodhi. This surpasses beyond calculation the merit gained by giving seven precious treasures as numerous as Mount Sumeru throughout the trichiliocosm. Thus, one should not object that the scriptural teaching is indeterminate and that, therefore, accepting, upholding, and cultivating it cannot lead to the attainment of great bodhi.

In order to sever this doubt, this scriptural passage is therefore elucidated next.

+ Not equal to one hundredth part, and so forth: The Treatise calls this “superiority in numerical calculation.” This clarifies that conditioned, outflowing merit is an exhaustible dharma, and therefore its quantity also has a limit. Unconditioned wholesome dharmas free from outflows are inexhaustible dharmas, and therefore their quantity is also limitless; hence, they are superior.

+ Not equal to one kala part: The Treatise calls this “superiority in power.” Kala is the correct pronunciation in the Western Region. If a single strand is divided into one hundred parts, one of those hundred parts is called one kala. Its meaning is rendered as “superiority in power,” because the majestic power of the merit of wholesome dharmas free from outflows far surpasses that of outflowing wholesome dharmas; hence, it is called superiority in power.

+ No numerical fraction is equal to one: The Treatise calls this “superiority through dissimilarity.” This also concerns numerical calculation, becoming increasingly subtle; even the tiniest fraction is not equal to one, and so it is called superiority through dissimilarity. This clarifies that, if these wholesome dharmas free from outflows possessed form, even the entire Dharma-realm and empty space could not contain them.

Exhaustible conditioned dharmas are used to reveal inexhaustible unconditioned dharmas; therefore, even if one posited so minuscule a fraction, it still would not be comparable. It is like dividing a mustard seed into ten thousand parts and comparing one of them with Mount Sumeru: even if that mountain’s mass were not diminished, in the end they would still not be alike.

+ One upanishada part: In the Treatise, its meaning is rendered as “superiority of cause,” clarifying that the cause and fruit are not alike. Precious jewels constitute outflowing wholesome dharmas and yield only blessed recompense within the three realms; their cause and fruit are both dissimilar. Wholesome dharmas free from outflows can, in the distant future, bring about the fruit of Buddhahood; both their cause and fruit are superior, and therefore they are said to be incomparable.

– The Treatise states:

+ From the words, “Again, a doubt arises,” down to, “One cannot attain great bodhi”: This formulates an objection based on the sutra. Why is the dharma that is expounded regarded as an indeterminate dharma? This explains and confirms the intent of the objection.

+ From “In order to sever this doubt” onward: This briefly introduces the intent of the reply and gives rise to the following verses. Thus, the Treatise uses two verses to explain the scriptural passage above.

+ The first verse: It explains that the merit of accepting and upholding the sutra far surpasses the merit gained from giving, thereby answering the doubt that the scriptural teaching is indeterminate and therefore is not a cause.

+ The second verse: It explains the four kinds of superiority, from “not equal to one hundredth part” through “none can equal it.”

– The first verse states: “Although the spoken dharma is indeterminate”: This raises the intent of the doubt. The preceding doubt stated: The scriptural teaching consists of sounds, whose nature is an indeterminate dharma. If one relies upon this indeterminate dharma to accept, uphold, and cultivate it, no wholesome quality is produced; thus, it does not possess the meaning of a cause. How, then, can it be said that samyak-sambodhi is attained through all wholesome dharmas? Therefore, the answer is: “Although the spoken dharma is indeterminate.” This line of verse accommodates the doubter’s intent and therefore says: Although the spoken dharma is indeterminate, nevertheless, although the sounds of the verbal teaching are indeterminate dharmas, they can expound the principle of Buddha-nature and nirvana. By relying upon them in cultivation, one produces the superior understanding born of the three kinds of wisdom, enabling the practitioner ultimately to attain the eternal fruit. Because they contain the principle that is expounded, benefit myriad beings, and possess the capacity to produce the fruit, this clarifies that, although the verbal teaching is indeterminate, it possesses the meaning of a cause. Therefore, the following line of verse says: “Yet it is declared to be that cause.”

How, then, can one object that because it is indeterminate, it does not possess the meaning of a cause, and therefore cultivation cannot lead to the attainment of bodhi? This explains the first half of the verse.

There is also another explanation: The scriptural teaching is not indeterminate. Why? Because this scriptural teaching manifests from within the realized dharma of suchness; consequently, this aspect is perfumed by the realized dharma of suchness.

Therefore, the verbal teaching is not indeterminate and possesses the meaning of a cause. It is like perfuming sesame seeds with sumana flowers and champaka flowers, then pressing them to obtain oil, which is called sumana oil and champaka oil. This verbal teaching is likewise so.

Because it is perfumed by the realized dharma, it is not indeterminate. Therefore, accepting, upholding, reading, and reciting this verbal teaching, which is capable of expounding the meaning, produces the wisdom born of hearing. From hearing arises reflection; from reflection arises cultivation.

Cultivating successively in this manner, one eventually realizes unsurpassed bodhi. This far surpasses the merit of giving seven precious treasures as numerous as Mount Sumeru throughout the trichiliocosm. Because the merit thus gained is outflowing and cannot bring about the realization of great bodhi, it is inferior.

Therefore, the latter half of the verse states: “For this reason, a single Dharma treasure surpasses immeasurable precious jewels.”

+ A single Dharma treasure: This refers to a single verse of the Prajnaparamita Sutra, which is called a Dharma treasure.

+ For this reason: That is, because this scriptural teaching is not indeterminate and possesses the meaning of a cause, it far surpasses the merit marked by characteristics that is gained from giving immeasurable precious jewels.

+ What does this mean? From “Although the dharma that is expounded is said to be” down to “it can serve as the cause of bodhi”: This explains the first two lines of the verse. The author of the Treatise again accommodates the intent of the doubt, clarifying that although the verbal teaching is indeterminate, it possesses the meaning of a cause.

+ Again, to say that it is indeterminate is incorrect in meaning, and so forth, up to: Superior to immeasurable jewels: This explains the latter two lines of the verse; that is, it cites the verse by way of summary and conclusion.

+ The intent here is to refute the doubt: It explains that the scriptural teaching is not an indeterminate dharma. Your dharma is indeterminate, whereas my Dharma is determinate. In your Hinayana teaching, vocal teaching is regarded as indeterminate. Now, according to my Mahayana teaching, it is clarified that the sounds of the scriptural teaching issue from the determinate Dharma of the Buddha’s Dharma-body; therefore, they are determinate dharmas, not indeterminate.

Furthermore, whenever a practitioner’s three karmas of body, speech, and mind arise and act, they all possess the power to bring about results, and they also have the meaning of being conducive to determinacy and of benefiting all beings. The scriptural teachings expounded by the Buddhas are, in the nature of their sounds, wholesome verbal karma; they accord with principle and benefit all beings, and therefore are not indeterminate.

+ Therefore, the Dharma thus expounded surpasses the merit gained by giving away jewels equal in quantity to Mount Sumeru an asaṃkhya number of times: This summarizes that the merit gained by receiving and upholding the scriptural teaching surpasses the merit gained by giving away jewels.

+ From the words, “As the sutra states,” onward: The scripture is used to draw the conclusion.

– What meaning does this indicate? This passage, as stated in the sutra: It cites together the merit of receiving and upholding the sutra and summarizes the meaning of the merit created by giving away jewels. However, it has not yet explained how many kinds of superiority there are. Therefore, the question is posed: What is indicated here by such statements as “not equal to one hundredth,” and so forth? The second verse is then composed in reply: Number, power, dissimilarity, and superiority. This single line jointly explains three kinds of superiority: superiority in number, superiority in power, and superiority through dissimilarity.

+ The verse states: “The cause is also dissimilar”: This clarifies the fourth kind of superiority, namely superiority of cause. In order to complete the metrical line, the words “is dissimilar” are cited together.

+ The verse states:

“All worldly dharmas
Cannot serve as analogies.”

This means that the unconditioned, undefiled wholesome Dharma can serve as the undefiled cause of Buddhahood; therefore, none of the conditioned, defiled dharmas of the world can be compared with it. Hence it says: “Cannot serve as analogies.”

+ What meaning does this express? It indicates that, compared with the former merit, this merit is far superior: This question-and-answer passage jointly explains the meaning of superiority indicated by the verse. In what ways is it superior? First, it is superior in number, and so forth. Thus, the four kinds of superiority in the first half of the verse are set forth.

+ From the words, “superior in number,” onward: Each of the names of those four kinds of superiority is stated separately, and the names are briefly explained; through their connection with the sutra, they can therefore be understood.

Furthermore, no worldly dharma can serve as an analogy for this most excellent Dharma. “This Dharma”: This explains the latter half of the verse and cites the verse by way of summary and conclusion.

+ From the words, “Thus, within that merit,” onward: This summarizes the superiority of the merit gained by receiving and upholding the sutra.

11. “Subhuti! What do you think? Do you suppose that the Tathagata entertains the thought, ‘I liberate sentient beings’?” and so forth: This is the eleventh scriptural passage in the Section on Dispelling Doubts.

+ The reason it follows here is that another doubt arises at this point. What is the doubt? In the ninth scriptural passage above, the first three statements explained that the equal Dharma-body has always been complete, never deficient or diminished; that it is not attained through cultivation; that it is neither high nor low; and that it is also free from the characteristics of self, person, sentient being, and life span, while perfect enlightenment is equally realized.

This explanation is based on the principle of equality inherent in the Buddha-nature of the Dharma-body, which has always been tranquil and pure, without distinction between this and that or the duality of ordinary beings and sages. The objection is raised: If the Dharma-body is equal, without any distinction between ordinary beings and sages, then there should likewise be no one who cultivates the path and attains its fruit.

If no one cultivates the path and attains its fruit, why does the sutra say that the Tathagata liberates sentient beings? If the Buddha liberates sentient beings, it must be understood that the Tathagata cultivated practice and eliminated delusions before the Dharma-body could become complete. Since sentient beings have not yet cultivated practice and eliminated delusions, their Dharma-body would therefore be incomplete.

If so, great enlightenment is realized only through the causes and conditions of cultivating practice and eliminating delusions, and it cannot be said that the Dharma-body has always been perfect and complete, unattained through cultivation. This is clearly the implication.

In the third abiding and also in the fourth scriptural passage of this Section on Dispelling Doubts, it is stated: “If a bodhisattva entertains the thought, ‘I liberate sentient beings,’ that person is not a bodhisattva.” Those two passages have already clarified that, within the principle of the equality of true suchness, a bodhisattva does not perceive the Dharma-body and true suchness of sentient beings as different from the Dharma-body and true suchness of the bodhisattva’s own person, such that there would be beings who could be liberated.

Yet a bodhisattva’s stage is still within the ground of training, where the state of realization is not yet stable, delusions have not been completely eliminated, and the principle has not been perfectly perceived. Within the principle of equality, a bodhisattva may perceive the Dharma-body and true suchness of sentient beings as incomplete and different from the Dharma-body and true suchness of the bodhisattva’s own person, and thus give rise to the intention to liberate them.

Even such a person is not a bodhisattva. How much less, then, could the Tathagata—whose practice is perfect, whose delusions are utterly extinguished, and whose fruition abides at the stage beyond training—be said to liberate sentient beings? This clarifies that the Buddha and sentient beings are equal with regard to the Dharma-body, without increase or decrease and without superiority or inferiority.

Therefore, apart from the Dharma-body of true suchness, there are no separate sentient beings who could be liberated. If it is said that the Buddha liberates sentient beings, then the Dharma-body would be a dharma attained through cultivation, rather than the fundamentally pure equality possessed alike by ordinary beings and sages. From this one would infer that the Buddhas possess the Dharma-body only because they cultivated practice and attained fruition, whereas sentient beings, having not yet cultivated, do not possess the Dharma-body.

If sentient beings do not possess the Dharma-body, then it cannot be said that the Dharma-body is equal, that its essence neither increases nor decreases, or that it is never deficient or diminished. Nor could it be said that the Dharma-body is fundamentally pure and free from self, person, and so forth.

Because this doubt arises, the sutra answers by saying: “Do you suppose that the Tathagata entertains this thought: ‘I liberate sentient beings’?” Here the Buddha asks the Venerable Subhuti: Do you suppose that the Tathagata gives rise to the discriminating thought, “Because I cultivated practice and completely eliminated delusions, I possess the complete Dharma-body. Since sentient beings have not yet cultivated practice and eliminated delusions, they do not possess the complete Dharma-body”? This would mean that, apart from the Dharma-realm of true suchness, separate sentient beings truly exist, and thus the Tathagata wishes to give rise to the intention to liberate them and lead them to emancipation.

+ “You should not give rise to such a view”: This bars that mind of attachment to views.

+ Why? This is the explanation. First, it clarifies why the Tathagata admonishes the Venerable Subhuti: “You should not give rise to such a view!” The answer is: In truth, there are no sentient beings whom the Tathagata liberates.

Clearly, the Buddha and sentient beings differ as sages and ordinary beings, yet their Dharma-body is complete, equal, and without distinction. This clarifies that, upon the principle of the equality of true suchness, the designation “sentient being” exists, but there is no separate, fixed entity that is a truly existent sentient being distinct from the true Dharma-realm and liberated by the Tathagata. As the Manjushri Prajnaparamita Sutra states: Suppose that all the Buddhas throughout the ten directions were each to abide in the world for one kalpa or more than one kalpa, expounding the Dharma day and night without ever ceasing in mind, and that each Buddha liberated sentient beings as numerous as the immeasurable sands of the Ganges, causing them all to enter nirvana;

even then, the realm of sentient beings would neither increase nor decrease.

Why? Because apart from the Dharma-realm of true suchness, no fixed characteristic of a sentient being can be found. Therefore, the realm of sentient beings neither increases nor decreases.

Furthermore, the Avatamsaka Sutra states: The realm of sentient beings does not increase, and the realm of sentient beings does not decrease. This is stated on the basis of the true principle of the Dharma realm, which pertains to the equality of the Dharmakaya, in order to clarify that there is neither increase nor decrease.

Furthermore, the Shorter Prajnaparamita Sutra states: All sentient beings have been pure from the beginning. Even if the Buddhas, throughout hundreds of thousands of myriads of kalpas, were to proclaim, “Sentient beings! Sentient beings!” nevertheless, no sentient being truly and definitively exists who could be apprehended.

If these scriptural passages are used as evidence, one knows that within the principle of equality, there are no sentient beings distinct from the Buddhas who could be delivered.

Furthermore, if the Buddha delivered sentient beings, this would mean that the Buddha himself delivered the Buddha, and that the Dharma realm in turn delivered the Dharma realm. Therefore, one should know that the designation “sentient being” exists upon the Dharmakaya itself; apart from the Dharma realm, there are no separate sentient beings who could be delivered. Thus, the Sutra of Neither Increase nor Decrease states: When the Dharmakaya is obscured by afflictions, it is called a sentient being.

Yet another doubt arises: Even if no sentient being truly and definitively exists who could be delivered, this does not mean that there are no conventionally existent sentient beings constituted by the five skandhas. Why, then, does the Tathagata not deliver them? Therefore, the sutra answers: “Subhuti, if there truly were sentient beings whom the Tathagata delivered, then the Tathagata would possess such views as the mark of a self, the mark of a person, and so forth.” This clarifies that not only is there no truly and definitively existent sentient being who could be delivered, but there is not even a conventionally existent sentient being who could be delivered.

Why? Although the designation “sentient being” is applied to the dharmas of the five skandhas, those five skandhas do not possess the substance of a sentient being. Not only do they lack the substance of a sentient being, but they are also not different from Buddha-nature.

The “sentient being of the five skandhas” designated upon them is merely a conventional name and therefore cannot be delivered either. If the Tathagata were to give rise to the thought that, apart from the Dharma realm of true suchness, there existed conventionally designated sentient beings constituted by the five skandhas who could be delivered, then such delusions as the mark of a self and the like would still not have been entirely eradicated.

On this basis, yet another doubt arises: If the Tathagata is free from such delusions and afflictions as the mark of a self and the like, why did the Tathagata himself say, “In the past, I was once a wheel-turning sage king, Sakra, Brahma King, and so forth”? Since this serves as evidence, one should know that the Tathagata has not yet entirely eliminated the mark of a self. Thus, it should not be said that the Tathagata is free from the mark of a self. Therefore, the answer states: “Subhuti, when the Tathagata speaks of a self, it is precisely not a self.” This clarifies that the Tathagata speaks of a self in conformity with conventional worldly language, not because such marks as self, person, and so forth have not yet been eliminated.

Again, on this basis, another doubt arises: There must be a spiritual self. If there truly were no spiritual self, why would everyone speak of a self, saying, “In the past, I came from the heavenly realm,” or “I came from the human realm”? Therefore, the answer states: “But ordinary fools give rise to the notion that there is a self.” This clarifies that ordinary fools, with minds attached to marks, suppose that within selfless dharmas there is a spiritual self that has come from the past without perishing and has arrived in the present. Thus, they falsely claim that a self exists; it is not that a self truly exists in principle.

+ “Those of the way of hair” (ordinary beings of the way of hair): This expression means foolish, benighted, and devoid of wisdom. Here, Venerable Subhuti should ask: “World-Honored One! What is meant by ‘ordinary fools’? I do not yet understand this meaning. May the Tathagata explain it for me.” Therefore, the Buddha answers: “Subhuti, the arising of ordinary fools is said by the Tathagata to be non-arising.”

+ “This is called arising”: In speaking of arising, it means that ordinary fools arise—that is, they give rise to the view of a self—and therefore it is called arising. This “arising” is called Dhyana (?) in the Western Regions; when discussed according to worldly usage (?), there is no exact equivalent by which it may be jointly translated. Again, when explained according to its meaning, the expression “the arising of ordinary fools” is therefore established.

+ “It is said to be non-arising”: This clarifies that ordinary fools can only give rise to the view of a self and other such delusions; they cannot give rise to the supramundane, undefiled realization of the noble ones. Therefore, it is called “non-arising.”

+ “Therefore, it is called the arising of ordinary fools”: They can only give rise to the view of a self and cannot give rise to the dharmas of the noble ones. Thus, in conclusion, it is called the arising of ordinary fools.

– The Treatise states: “Again, there is a doubt: If the Dharma is equal, its marks having neither high nor low”: This reiterates the doubt arising from the ninth section of the sutra. The preceding three and a half lines provide the answer.

+ “Why does the Tathagata say that he delivers sentient beings?”: This presents the purport of the objection.

+ “The sutra passage from this point onward is intended to eliminate that doubt”: This introduces the connecting purport of this section of the sutra, which is to eliminate that doubt. The Treatise employs two verses to explain it.

The first verse formulates the question and answer and explains the first two doubts in the sutra. Since the meaning has not yet been fully expressed, it is linked to the first three lines of the second verse. The fourth line explains the last two doubts in the sutra.

– The first verse states:

The true Dharma realm is equal;

The Buddha delivers no sentient beings.

Because their names and those skandhas

Are not separate from the Dharma realm.

“The true Dharma realm is equal; the Buddha delivers no sentient beings”: This clarifies that, within the principle of true suchness, the Buddha and sentient beings are equal with respect to the Dharmakaya, and there is no distinction between ordinary beings and noble ones. How, then, could it be maintained that outside the Dharma realm of true suchness there are truly and definitively existent sentient beings who are different from the Buddha and could be delivered? This explains the sutra’s statement: “Why? Because in truth there are no sentient beings delivered by the Tathagata.”

On account of the preceding sutra passage, the objection is raised: If, within the equal principle of true suchness, there are no sentient beings who could be delivered, this still does not mean that there are no conventionally existent sentient beings. Why, then, are they not delivered? Therefore, the latter half of the verse states: “Because their names and those skandhas are not separate from the Dharma realm.” This clarifies that conventionally designated sentient beings are constituted by the five skandhas. The substance of the dharmas of those five skandhas is itself illusory; they exist in dependence upon true suchness, and there are no separate, illusory sentient beings who could be delivered.

+ From the words “What is the meaning of this?” onward, up to “the verse states: ‘not separate from the Dharma realm’”: This first explains the latter half of the verse. “Conventionally designated sentient beings exist together with the five skandhas” explains the third line of the verse.

+ “Their names and the skandhas are not separate from the Dharma realm”: This explains the establishment of the designation and the meaning of the skandhas, and then cites the fourth line as proof that they are not separate.

+ Why does the author of the Treatise first explain the latter half of the verse? It is because the doubter supposes that sentient beings do not possess the Dharmakaya. The latter half of the verse has clarified that the five skandhas of sentient beings are themselves designations within the Dharma realm; therefore, one knows that they possess the Dharmakaya. For this reason, the latter half is explained first, and only afterward are the first two lines explained: Within the principle of equality, the Buddha does not deliver sentient beings. From this point onward, the first half of the verse is explained.

+ “That Dharma realm is without differentiation”: This formally explains the first line. It is presented as an explanation, as the verse states: “The true Dharma realm is equal.”

+ “Therefore, the Tathagata does not deliver even a single sentient being”: Because the Dharma realm is equal and ordinary beings and noble ones are not different, the Buddha does not deliver even one sentient being, much less many. Thus, the second line of the verse is used to conclude that the Buddha does not deliver sentient beings.

+ “As the sutra states: ‘Why? Because in truth there are no sentient beings whatsoever delivered by the Tathagata’”: This concludes the explanation of the first half of the verse.

+ “The Buddha said: ‘Subhuti,’ and so forth”: This concludes the explanation of the latter half of the verse and also provides the transition that gives rise to the following second verse.

– The second verse states:

To cling to “I deliver” is an error,

Because of attachment to those dharmas;

This is clinging to the delivery of sentient beings.

These three lines, together with the following two lines of the preceding verse, jointly explain the statement in the sutra: “If there truly were sentient beings liberated by the Tathagata, the Tathagata would then have the marks of a self, a person, a sentient being, and a life span.” This statement clarifies that the Tathagata does not grasp the mark of sentient beings, yet wishes to liberate them. Now, to say, “If he liberates,” would entail the fault of grasping marks. This raises the possibility of a fault in order to demonstrate the absence of any fault. One should therefore know that, apart from the dharmadhatu, there are no separate, illusory sentient beings constituted by the five skandhas who are liberated by the Tathagata.

+ “Clinging to ‘I liberate’ is a fault”: This clarifies that if the Tathagata were deliberately to conceive that there are illusory sentient beings constituted by the five skandhas, distinct from true suchness, and were to grasp them in order to liberate them, he would incur the fault of grasping marks. Why would this be a fault? The answer is: Because he would be grasping those dharmas.

That is, because he would grasp such dharmas as the five skandhas—which are conditioned and false—as sentient beings, and would wish to liberate them and enable them to attain release, this would be a fault. Although it was stated above that this is due to grasping those dharmas, it was not yet known what conception of grasping had been formed. Therefore, the third line of the verse says: “This is clinging to the liberation of sentient beings.”

If the Tathagata regarded himself as the Buddha, one who no longer has afflictions, and saw sentient beings as ordinary beings fully possessed of afflictions and lacking the Dharma-body, who must now be saved and liberated so that they may abandon those afflictions, this would be the fault of grasping marks.

+ The verse states: “Non-grasping and grasping should be understood”: This explains the statement in the sutra: “The Tathagata says that there is a self, but it is not a self; yet foolish ordinary beings give rise to the notion that a self exists,” and answers the third doubt: Why is a self spoken of?

+ “Non-grasping”: This clarifies that the Tathagata comprehends that sentient beings composed of the aggregates of birth have always been false and unreal, with nothing that can be liberated; therefore, this is called non-grasping.

+ “Grasping”: Foolish sentient beings do not understand that the essence of the aggregates of birth is illusory and instead hold that a self definitely and truly exists; therefore, this is called grasping.

+ “Should be understood”: This exhorts people to understand the meaning of grasping and non-grasping as pertaining respectively to these two kinds of persons, the ordinary and the noble.

+ From the passage, “What is the meaning of this?” through “Clinging to ‘I liberate’ is a fault”: The treatise explains the first line of the verse, citing the verse in order to summarize the conclusion.

+ From “Because of grasping those dharmas” through “There is such a mark”: Between these two statements, the preceding verse is first cited and is then explained.

+ “The sutra further says: ‘Subhuti! The Tathagata says that there is a self,’ and so forth. What is the meaning of this?”: This raises, as a question, the fourth line that explains the sutra.

+ “The verse says: ‘Non-grasping and grasping should be understood’”: This cites the verse together with the sutra in order to establish the proper connection.

+ From “To whom does this refer?” onward: This explains the meaning of grasping and non-grasping in the verse, clarifying that the Tathagata does not grasp, whereas ordinary beings do grasp.

+ “Furthermore, Subhuti! The Tathagata says that foolish ordinary beings who arise are not arisen”: Because this statement from the sutra has not yet been explained in the verse, it is presented separately.

+ “Because they do not give rise to the dharmas of noble beings, they are called ‘not arisen’”: Here the World-Honored Maitreya (? No connection with this has appeared from the beginning of the Treatise up to this point?) explains and clarifies why foolish ordinary beings who are born are said to be unborn: because they are unable to give rise to the dharmas of noble beings, they are called “not arisen.”

12. “Subhuti! What do you think? Can the Tathagata be seen by means of perfected marks?”: This is the twelfth passage of the sutra in the Section on Dispelling Doubts.

Although this has already been raised and cited six times, it is now raised again to establish continuity because a doubt has arisen.

The doubt is as follows: Although it has previously been extensively explained that the Tathagata’s Dharma-body has no physical marks by which it can be seen, if it cannot be seen, it should therefore be nonexistent. Yet it is also said that although it cannot be seen, it wondrously exists. If it exists, it should be visible.

But it is now said to exist while being invisible. One should therefore clearly understand that there is no separate, unconditioned Dharma-body that is not a dharma attained through cultivation. Rather, by cultivating the myriad virtues as skillful means and as the causes of the thirty-two marks, and relying upon the karmic practices of merit, one realizes the fruit of Buddhahood.

The Buddha-body that presently possesses immeasurable excellent marks is itself the Dharma-body. How, then, can it be said that apart from that body adorned with excellent marks, a separate Dharma-body exists? If it is through the causes and conditions of cultivation that, upon attaining the body adorned with excellent marks, one also possesses the Dharma-body, then by cultivating merit through causes and conditions, one realizes the true Dharma-body.

As clearly stated in the sutra: When the Buddha cultivated the karma producing the thirty-two marks, because he bowed his head in reverence to the Three Jewels, his teachers and elders, and his parents, he obtained the mark of the Invisible Crown of the Head. Because he assisted others in performing wholesome deeds, he obtained the mark of webbed fingers upon his hands, and so forth. Since these resultant marks were attained through causes, it may correspondingly be known that the Dharma-body must also be attainable through cultivation.

If it can be attained through cultivation, then the preceding passage of the sutra should not have used its first three statements to demonstrate that the Dharma-body is not a dharma attained through cultivation, while the final statement clarifies that all wholesome dharmas attain complete enlightenment—that is, that the reward-body is attained through cultivation. From this comparison, it is understood that because one cultivates merit, seeing the physical marks of the Reward Buddha is itself seeing the Dharma-body.

Thus, it is known that the Dharma-body is a dharma attainable through cultivation. One should not maintain that there is a separate Dharma-body that has always been fixed and is not attained through cultivation.

Because there is such a doubt, the answer intends to demonstrate that one cannot take the physical marks of the Reward Buddha as a cause attained through cultivation and thereby suppose that the Tathagata can be seen. By such a comparison, one would likewise claim that the Dharma-body can be seen and is also a field of merit that has been attained.

+ “Subhuti! What do you think? Can the Tathagata be seen by means of perfected marks?”: The Buddha asks the Venerable Subhuti: According to your understanding, when you examine the matter through wisdom and reflection, can the Tathagata’s Dharma-body be seen by means of the marks of a great person obtained through karmic practices of merit?

The Venerable Subhuti then replies: As I understand the meaning expounded by the Tathagata, the Tathagata’s Dharma-body cannot be seen by means of the perfected bodily marks of the Reward Buddha, which were obtained through karmic practices of merit.

+ “The Buddha said: ‘So it is’”: The Tathagata confirms that the Venerable Subhuti’s answer is reasonable. The Buddha thereby dispels the doubt in the minds of the assembly, clarifying that it is indeed as the Venerable Subhuti has said: One cannot inferentially know and see the Tathagata’s Dharma-body by means of the perfected bodily marks produced by merit.

+ “The Buddha said: ‘Subhuti! If the Tathagata could be contemplated by means of perfected marks, then a wheel-turning sage-king would be a Tathagata’”: This clarifies that if, because the physical body and marks of the Reward Buddha are attained by cultivating their causes, one were to suppose that the Buddha’s Dharma-body is likewise attained through causes and comes into existence only subsequently through the causes and conditions of cultivation, then the wheel-turning kings of the world, who also possess the thirty-two marks and eighty excellent characteristics, would likewise have to be the Buddha’s Dharma-body.

Here, the challenge concerns the two Buddha-bodies, the Dharma-body and the Reward-body; why, then, is a wheel-turning king cited? It is to restore faith. These two kinds of Buddha are identical in one respect and different in another, and their individual characteristics are difficult to distinguish.

A wheel-turning king, who does not belong to the same category, is cited for comparison, and this explanation enables the doubter to understand more clearly that although the principle is one and the same, their meanings differ according to essence and function. Thus, the distinct characteristics of the two Buddha-bodies can be clearly perceived.

– The treatise states: “Again, there is a doubt”: From “Although the Tathagata cannot be seen by means of perfected marks” through “The Dharma-body is the essence”: This doubt deceptively accords with the Tathagata’s meaning concerning the Dharma-body as explained above. Although it appears to have been understood, the mind still retains unresolved doubt and wishes to raise a further challenge. Therefore, the matter is reiterated.

+ But if, through inferential knowledge based on seeing the fulfillment of the marks, one recognizes that the Tathagata’s Dharma-body is the fulfillment of meritorious marks: This raises an objection.

+ Concerning the Tathagata’s Dharma-body: The doubter maintains that, with regard to the Tathagata, it is difficult to formulate such an explanation, yet still holds that there is no distinct unconditioned Dharma-body that cannot be seen through marks and is not attained from causes.

+ Through seeing the fulfillment of the marks: The doubter maintains that when one sees the Reward Buddha’s body, adorned with the fulfillment of meritorious marks, the Dharma-body then comes into being and did not originally exist.

+ Inferential knowledge recognizes that the Tathagata’s Dharma-body is the fulfillment of meritorious marks: This means that since the Reward Buddha is attained through the causes of merit and virtue and can be seen through marks, by reasoning from similarity one concludes that the Tathagata’s Dharma-body must likewise be attained from causes and can be seen through marks. How, then, could there be a distinct, unconditioned Dharma-body, inherently and eternally established, not attained from causes and incapable of being seen through marks?

+ The scriptural passage from this point onward eliminates this doubt: This introduces the continuing intent of the sutra.

The Treatise uses two verses to explain this passage of the sutra.

– The first verse explains the sutra’s response to the doubt: “It is not the marks of the physical body by which the Tathagata may be inferentially known.” This clarifies that one cannot see the Tathagata by means of the physical body and its marks, which are attained through the causal expedient of meritorious deeds. That is, one cannot reason by analogy that the Tathagata’s Dharma-body is identical with physical marks and therefore can also be seen, with no distinct, markless Dharma-body apart from them. Therefore, the latter half of the verse says:

The Buddhas are solely the Dharma-body;

A Wheel-Turning King is not a Buddha.

+ The Buddhas are solely the Dharma-body: This clarifies that although the Buddha’s Dharma-body is unlike the visible physical marks of the Reward Buddha and is a Dharma attained through cultivation, it is nevertheless fully endowed with the two adornments of suchness and liberation as its marks. If one were to say that because the Reward Buddha possesses physical marks, those marks are the Dharma-body, then a Wheel-Turning King, who possesses the thirty-two marks, should also be the Dharma-body.

Yet although a Wheel-Turning King possesses such marks, he is not the Dharma-body. Thus, although the Reward Buddha possesses marks, those marks are likewise not the Buddha’s Dharma-body.

+ From the words, “What does this mean? Some say that merit and virtue can produce these marks,” through “the fruit of unsurpassed bodhi”: Here the author of the Treatise once again cites the doubter’s argument.

+ From the words, “In order to prevent this,” onward: This again introduces the succeeding passage of the sutra that explains and answers the doubt.

+ Therefore, the Tathagata cannot be seen through the fulfillment of marks: Since a Wheel-Turning King possesses marks but is not thereby the Dharma-body, one cannot reason that because the Reward Buddha can be seen through marks and is attained from causes, the unconditioned Dharma-body, inherently and eternally established, is likewise attained from causes and can be seen through marks.

Here, the prose section of the Treatise has directly stated the intent of the doubt and indicated how the sutra answers it, without explaining the verse (?). Clearly, the preceding verse fully explains the sutra and completely answers the doubt. Why, then, is a second verse composed?

The preceding verse is based on the aspect of distinct characteristics and explains throughout that physical marks are not the Buddha’s Dharma-body. Yet, lest beings suppose that the physical marks of the Reward-body are entirely separate from the Dharma-body and thus reject the meaning of the Reward Buddha, the following verse was composed. It clarifies that although the Dharma-body cannot be apprehended by reasoning from similarity with the physical marks of the Reward Buddha, this is said from the aspect of difference.

From the aspect of unity, however, this very Dharma-body manifests its functioning and is called the Reward Buddha; therefore, it should not be rejected altogether.

– The first three lines of this second verse likewise explain that the essence of the Dharma-body is not physical marks and is not attained from causes, no differently from what was stated above. The reason this is stated again—“Not the excellent marks of karmic reward, produced through the fulfillment of merit and virtue, can attain the true Dharma-body”—is solely to introduce the fourth line: “Therefore, the expedient has different characteristics.” It is repeated in order to complete the four-line verse.

+ Therefore, the expedient has different characteristics: This explains that the Tathagata has two kinds of bodies:

1. The body characterized by wisdom.

2. The body of different characteristics.

+ The body characterized by wisdom: This is the character of suchness and liberation belonging to the Tathagata’s Dharma-body.

+ The expedient body of different characteristics: This is the Reward Buddha’s body, adorned with the excellent marks produced by merit and virtue. It is attained through expedient means and differs in meaning from the Dharma-body; therefore, it is called the body of different characteristics.

Yet this Reward-body with its excellent marks is precisely the marvelous functioning manifested by the Dharma-body. Thus, although it is called the reward body when speaking of its characteristics, in terms of its essence and source it is not different. How could one hear that, from the aspect of difference, the Dharma-body is distinguished as lacking excellent marks, and immediately conclude that outside the Dharma-body there clearly exists a Reward Buddha with physical marks that can be apprehended, thereby discarding the aspect of unity?

13. At that time, the Blessed One spoke two verses: This is the thirteenth scriptural passage in the Section on Eliminating Doubts.

The reason for its continuation is that the preceding passage of the sutra explained that the Dharma-body has always been quiescent, like empty space, and cannot be seen through the Reward Buddha’s marks of a great person, which are attained through meritorious deeds. Since the sutra is about to explain and confirm this meaning, it presents two verses.

– The first two lines of the first verse clarify that the essence of the Dharma-body transcends all form and sound and cannot be apprehended through seeing or hearing.

The latter two lines explain that if one seeks to apprehend the Dharma-body through the causes of seeing and hearing, that person follows a deviant path and cannot see the Tathagata’s Dharma-body.

(If one sees me through form

Or seeks me through sound,

That person follows a deviant path

And cannot see the Tathagata.)

– The first two lines of the second verse directly reveal that the essence of the Dharma-body possesses the form and sound of true liberation and has always been quiescent; it is not utterly devoid of form and sound.

(The wondrous essence of that Tathagata

Is precisely the Dharma-body of the Buddhas.)

The latter two lines of the second verse clarify that although the Dharma-body possesses true form and sound in its essence, it is not an object of discriminating consciousness and therefore cannot be known by it.

(The essence of Dharma cannot be seen;

That consciousness cannot know it.)

+ If one sees me through form or seeks me through sound: If the person then uttering these verses aloud is regarded as the verbal action of the Transformation Buddha, it may also be described as the verbal action of the Reward Buddha. In terms of principle, however, it is the Buddha’s Dharma-body that teaches. This explains that one cannot see or hear me through the form and sound manifested by the Reward Buddha and the Transformation Buddha.

It clarifies that the Dharma-body of Buddha Shakyamuni cannot be seen or heard through form and sound. Likewise, the Dharma-body of all beings cannot be seen or heard through form and sound. To maintain that the Dharma-body is identical with such form and sound and can therefore be seen and heard is not right view.

Thus, the third line of the verse says: “That person follows a deviant path.”

+ And cannot see the Tathagata: If one clings to the Dharma-body as being identical with form and sound in this way, one cannot see that Tathagata of the Dharma-body. Some people consequently give rise to a doubt: If the Tathagata’s Dharma-body cannot be seen or heard through form and sound, then there is no Dharma-body whatsoever. Moreover, if the Dharma-body is entirely devoid of form and sound, then form and sound are clearly and completely opposed to the Dharma-body. The second verse answers this doubt: “The wondrous essence of that Tathagata.”

This makes clear: Although that Dharma-body cannot be seen or heard through form and sound, the form and sound just mentioned exist within the wondrously existent essence of that Dharma-body. The sutra states above: It is not apart from the Dharma-body that there are visible forms and characteristics. It is not apart from the wisdom of realization that there is the sound of the teaching that can be expounded.

Furthermore, the Sutra of the Ten Grounds, in its discussion of the seventh ground, says: One knows that the intrinsic nature of the Dharma-body of all Buddhas is bodiless, yet one gives rise to the practice of adorning the physical body with marks and excellent characteristics. One knows that the voices of all Buddhas are soundless, originally quiescent, and beyond description in terms of characteristics, yet one practices the adornment of voice in accordance with the differences among all sentient beings.

As these scriptural passages attest, it should be understood that although the Dharma-body has no form or sound, such form and sound are not apart from the Dharma-body. Therefore, the second line says: “It is precisely the Dharma-body of all Buddhas.”

This explains that the essence of the Dharma-body is replete with the myriad virtues and therefore possesses the nature of form and sound.

Perhaps someone, upon hearing that the nature of form and sound exists within the Dharma-body itself, might immediately suppose that the Dharma-body has form and sound and can be seen and heard through the false discriminations of the mind, the faculty of thought, and consciousness possessed by ordinary beings. Therefore, the third line of the verse says: “The essence of the Dharma cannot be seen.”

This makes clear: Although the Dharma-body possesses the nature of form and sound, it cannot be seen or heard through the seeing and hearing of ordinary beings. Although it is said that the Dharma-body cannot be seen, it has not yet been stated who cannot see it. Therefore, the fourth line says: “That consciousness cannot know it.”

This clarifies: Although the essence of that Dharma-body possesses form and sound, it does not possess the functions of form and sound, nor is it the same as the form and sound of the lower grounds. Therefore, the six consciousnesses of ordinary beings cannot see or hear it. Not only can ordinary beings not see or hear it; even the noble wisdom of the two Vehicles cannot see or hear it.

The two verses in that sutra are explained by the author of the Treatise with only one verse.

+ The first two lines, “Seeing only form and hearing sound, that person does not know the Buddha,” explain the preceding verse. They make clear that if one considers the Dharma-body to be the same as the form and sound of the two Buddha-bodies and thus capable of being seen and heard, that person does not know the Buddha’s Dharma-body.

+ The latter two lines, “Because the Dharma-body is true suchness, it is not an object of consciousness,” explain that although the true Dharma-body possesses the nature of form and sound, it is not an object within the sphere of the six consciousnesses and therefore cannot be seen or heard.

+ From the words, “What meaning does this indicate? The Dharma-body of the Tathagata,” through “It should not be seen or heard in this manner”: Here the author of the Treatise explains the first line of the verse in the Treatise, thereby explaining the first two lines of the preceding verse in the sutra.

+ “By whom can it not be seen? It means that ordinary beings cannot see it”: This explains the second line of the verse in the Treatise, thereby explaining the latter two lines of the first verse in the sutra. Having explained this, the text cites the first half of the verse in the Treatise, which explains the latter two lines of the first verse in the sutra, as a summary conclusion.

+ “That person” means a person among ordinary beings. This reiterates the person previously cited as being unable to see the Tathagata’s Dharma-body. It then connects this with the explanation of the latter half of the verse in the Treatise, explains the second verse in the sutra, and cites the explanation of the sutra to draw the conclusion.

14. “Subhuti! What do you think? Can the Tathagata attain complete realization of Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi through perfected marks?”: This passage of the sutra is the fourteenth scriptural passage in the Section on Dispelling Doubts.

Here the sutra has already raised the matter seven times in succession.

The reason it is raised again is this: Above, the text has extensively explained that the unconditioned Dharma-body has always been fixed and certain, is wondrously existent in its serene purity, has an essence devoid of all characteristics, and is not attained through cultivation. Furthermore, the two preceding scriptural passages explained that the essence of the Dharma-body is inherently complete and that it is not through cultivation and meritorious deeds that one attains excellent marks, form, and sound that can be seen and heard.

Perhaps someone might think that it is precisely because a bodhisattva, beginning with the arousal of the aspiration for bodhi, passes through three asamkhyeya kalpas, perfects the cultivation of the ten grounds, brings the vajra-like mind to cessation, and, upon realizing the wisdom of all modes, is called a Reward-body Buddha possessing immeasurable excellent marks, that this is the Dharma-body. Such a person would therefore hold that the Dharma-body is attained through cultivation and can also be seen and heard.

Now, upon hearing that there is a distinct, unconditioned Dharma-body that is not attained from causes and cannot be seen or heard through form and sound, that person consequently gives rise to doubt: If the essence of the Dharma-body has none of the various characteristics, cannot be seen or heard, and cannot be attained through the cultivation of meritorious deeds, then will the great bodhisattvas, after passing through three great asamkhyeya kalpas and cultivating merit and wisdom as the supreme causes of the ten grounds, definitely attain realization or definitely attain no realization?

If it is definitely established that there is no realization, then both cause and effect are lost, which is the same as the annihilationist view of the Lesser Vehicle, and there is no bodhi that can be attained. It was previously said that all wholesome dharmas enable one to attain Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi, but what is said here would negate that. Thus, if there is no bodhi that can be realized, why should the great bodhisattvas pass through three great asamkhyeya kalpas, merely subjecting themselves to hardship without attaining anything at all?

If the merit cultivated among the supreme causes produces no fruit, then where does that fruit go?

Because there is such a doubt, the Buddha, intending to explain it, asked the Venerable Subhuti: “What do you think? Can the Tathagata attain complete realization of Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi through perfected marks?” Here the Buddha turns the doubt of the preceding person back upon the Venerable Subhuti as a question.

+ “You should not give rise to such a thought!”: This is intended to prevent that view. The Venerable should not give rise to this thought: that the Buddha’s Dharma-body is the same as the Reward-body Buddha and can be attained through the cultivation of meritorious marks. This is not yet the formal answer.

+ “If the Venerable gives rise to the thought that a bodhisattva who arouses the aspiration for bodhi and seeks the fruit of unsurpassed perfect awakening proclaims the characteristic of the annihilation of all dharmas”: This clarifies the Venerable Subhuti’s doubt: If Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi cannot be realized through perfected marks, then the merit and wisdom cultivated by a bodhisattva as causes ultimately have no fruit of bodhi that can be realized. If there is no bodhi that can be realized, then the causes bring forth nothing; thus the causes of merit are lost, and the resultant recompense is also lost. Therefore, this is called proclaiming the characteristic of annihilation.

+ The reason the text again speaks here of a bodhisattva who arouses the aspiration for bodhi and seeks the fruit of unsurpassed awakening is that it is discussing the characteristic of the annihilation of all dharmas. However, people of the Lesser Vehicle, having personally realized the “nirvana in which the body is reduced to ashes,” a state of ultimate quiescent cessation, take what they themselves have attained and consequently suppose that a bodhisattva likewise attains the same realization as they do; hence they give rise to the notion of annihilation.

Within the Dharma of the bodhisattvas, at what stage do such people of the Lesser Vehicle believe annihilation occurs? Some followers of the Dharmaguptaka and Mahisasaka schools—these two schools of the Lesser Vehicle—hold that when one attains the first ground and acquires resolute understanding of the patience regarding the non-arising of dharmas, one relinquishes all the merit cultivated before entering that ground and likewise receives no karmic recompense from it.

Why do they say this? People of the Lesser Vehicle completely eliminate the afflictions of the three realms and segmented birth-and-death, “reduce the body to ashes and extinguish cognition,” and enter nirvana without remainder; the causes and effects of good and evil are all relinquished. Seeing that a bodhisattva of the first ground eliminates the afflictions of the four abiding states and transcends segmented birth-and-death, they suppose that this is the same as their own extinguishing of body and cognition and that the bodhisattva likewise relinquishes the myriad practices cultivated as causes and also loses their resultant recompense.

Therefore, this is called “proclaiming the characteristic of the annihilation of all dharmas.”

There is yet another school, belonging to the Dharmaguptaka tradition of the Hinayana, which holds that only upon reaching the fifth or sixth bhumi, cultivating the ten contemplations of the Four Noble Truths, becoming well versed in the five branches of knowledge, and practicing the ten kinds of forward and reverse contemplation of the twelve links of dependent origination does one attain the patience of non-arising, eliminate the afflictions of the three realms, escape fragmentary birth and death, “reduce the body to ashes and extinguish cognition,” and enter nirvana without remainder.

At that time, this is identical to the annihilationism of the Hinayana, in which both cause and effect are lost. Next, there is another school, consisting of practitioners within the Sarvastivada school, which holds that only upon reaching the seventh bhumi does one attain the patience of non-arising, completely eliminate the afflictions of the three realms, and escape fragmentary birth and death. As in the Hinayana, one relinquishes body and cognition, and there is likewise no pure land as circumstantial recompense.

There is yet another Hinayana school which holds that only upon reaching the eighth bhumi does one realize the great patience of non-arising and the effortless resolute understanding. Only then does one transcend the three realms and relinquish body and cognition, so that everything is lost. Finally, there is another school, belonging to the Sarvastivada school, which holds that only within the ten bhumis does one realize the state of an anagamin and completely eliminate the afflictions of the three realms.

After the three vajra stages, one escapes fragmentary birth and death and realizes arhatship, which is then called Buddhahood; one enters nirvana without remainder, relinquishes all merit and virtue, and extinguishes body and cognition. Hence this is called the characteristic of annihilation.

+ O Subhuti! You should not give rise to such a thought, up to: Speaking of the characteristic of the annihilation of dharmas: This passage is intended merely to forestall the notion of a separate view and to clarify that this is not annihilation; it is not yet the formal answer. According to the subsequent portion of the Treatise, another line and a half should follow before reaching the scripture’s statement: Why?

Because a bodhisattva who gives rise to the bodhi mind and seeks to attain the fruit of unsurpassed, complete enlightenment does not speak of the characteristic of annihilation with regard to dharmas. This is the formal answer, explaining why the Buddha previously forestalled the thought by saying: Venerable Subhuti, you should not give rise to such a thought. It clarifies that although the unconditioned Dharma body has always been serene and cannot be attained through the characteristic of accomplishment arising from the cultivation of merit, nevertheless, the bodhisattva’s unsurpassed bodhi mind realized through the patience of non-arising on the first bhumi, up to the unsurpassed bodhi mind of the supreme fruit of Buddhahood, is not annihilated.

+ The reason why the unsurpassed bodhi mind of that patience of non-arising is said not to be annihilated: This clarifies that, through the causes and conditions of cultivating the merit, virtue, and wisdom of the eighty-four thousand paramita practices over one great asamkhyeya kalpa, a bodhisattva attains the patience of non-arising on the first bhumi and makes manifest the unconditioned Dharma body of Buddha-nature.

The merit, virtue, and wisdom accumulated throughout this one great asamkhyeya kalpa are profoundly united with the principle of the Dharma body, wholly consistent with it and impossible to distinguish from it; therefore, the cause is not lost. Having attained the patience of non-arising, within the expedient aspect there is the true supramundane recompense—the Dharma-nature body of true suchness—upon which abide the two kinds of nirvana, fully endowed with vast powers and functions; therefore, the effect is also not lost.

The same applies throughout the second and third asamkhyeya kalpas: neither cause nor effect is lost. Hence it is said: With regard to dharmas, one does not speak of the characteristic of annihilation. Here the Tathagata earnestly clarifies that, from the bodhisattva’s attainment of the patience of non-arising on the first bhumi through all the undefiled merit and virtue of the ten bhumis and the perfectly fulfilled recompense of the fruit, none is ever lost.

This is unlike the Hinayana relinquishment of body and cognition, whereby undefiled recompense is lost. Thus, the attainment of undefiled merit and virtue can encompass without loss the defiled merit and virtue of those below the bhumis. Yet when the resolute understanding of the supramundane is attained, those worldly dharmas are to be relinquished.

It is not yet clear whether the causal practices below the bhumis are lost or not. Therefore, the answer immediately follows: Worldly merit and virtue are also not lost. Why is this so?

Because it is precisely through the perfection of worldly goodness that it is transformed into supramundane goodness. The defiled merit and virtue of those below the bhumis give rise to the undefiled merit and virtue of those upon the bhumis, causing it to increase and become ever more excellent. At that time, for the bodhisattva, the object and cognition are equal and wholly consistent; no distinction is perceived between worldly and supramundane, or between that which illuminates and that which is illuminated.

There is only the single flavor of true suchness, just as the myriad rivers flow into the great ocean and become one in salty flavor, with none of the rivers retaining a separate flavor. Nor is the merit and virtue of those below the bhumis lost. Since this is so on the first bhumi and merit and virtue are not lost, so too none of the undefiled merit and virtue of the ten bhumis, together with their recompenses, is lost.

Here, based upon the three great asamkhyeya kalpas, cause and effect are distinguished within three periods. If the stages below the bhumis are regarded as the cause, then the path of seeing constituted by the patience of non-arising on the first bhumi is the effect. Or, if the excellent practices of the path of cultivation through the seventh bhumi and below are regarded as the cause, then the effortless path of the great patience of non-arising on the eighth bhumi is the effect. Or, if the effortless practices up to and including the vajra stage are regarded as the cause, then the merit and virtue of the Buddha bhumi are the effect.

As has now been extensively explained, when each bhumi is considered in relation to the others, each possesses cause and effect. This gives rise to a doubt: If, upon attaining the patience of non-arising on the first bhumi and proceeding through the ten bhumis, merit and virtue are not lost and are not annihilated, then how much merit and virtue can be attained—is it great or little? Because of this doubt, the analogy of the merit derived from giving the seven treasures in quantities equal to the sands of the Ganges is presented for comparison, clarifying that the merit thereby obtained is exceedingly great.

Yet when compared with the undefiled merit and virtue of the patience of non-arising on the first bhumi, even a single thought-moment of the latter cannot be equaled by a hundred, a thousand, ten thousand, or a hundred million parts of the former. This clarifies that although such defiled merit and virtue are exceedingly great, even if the merit of giving the seven treasures were undefiled and exceedingly abundant, however great it might be, compared with even a single thought-moment of the merit and virtue of the patience of non-arising, the latter would still exceed it by hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands, and hundreds of millions of times the sands of the Ganges, beyond all analogy.

+ If a bodhisattva knows that all dharmas are without self and attains the patience of non-arising, this surpasses the merit previously attained: This sets forth how the merit and virtue of the patience of non-arising on the first bhumi surpass the preceding merit derived from giving the seven treasures.

+ Knowing that all dharmas are without self: This means knowing that within the conditioned dharmas of the five skandhas of all sentient beings, there has never, from the very beginning, been a spiritual self, a person, or a living being. Hence it is called knowing that all dharmas are without self.

+ Attaining the patience of non-arising: Causes and conditions and true suchness are two kinds of dharmas, and both are without self. This clarifies that the essence of dharmas arising through causes and conditions has from the beginning never arisen, and is therefore called non-arising. The essence of the dharma of true suchness has always been quiescent and is wholly free from the characteristics of self and non-self; therefore, it is called non-arising.

It is also called emptiness with respect to the three characteristics. Since this is spoken with reference to the first bhumi, it is called the patience of non-arising of dharmas. Because this bodhisattva attains resolute understanding of the selflessness of true suchness and the patience of non-arising, the two kinds of characteristics of emptiness do not arise.

Another doubt arises: If both kinds of merit and virtue, defiled and undefiled, are entirely preserved, then this bodhisattva has grasped defiled merit and virtue. If the cause grasped is defiled merit and virtue, one will consequently receive recompense within the three realms. Therefore, the Tathagata answers: Because bodhisattvas do not grasp merit and virtue. This answer is again given with reference to the salient point, clarifying that bodhisattvas on the first bhumi do not grasp worldly, defiled merit and virtue. Venerable Subhuti likewise understands this according to the salient point and therefore says: Because bodhisattvas do not grasp merit and virtue, just as the Buddha has said.

+ The Buddha said: “Subhuti! A bodhisattva receives merit but does not grasp merit”: Above, the Venerable Subhuti, having misunderstood the Buddha’s intent, heard it said that a bodhisattva does not retain merit and suspected that neither conditioned nor unconditioned merit is retained. Therefore, the Buddha replied: “Subhuti! A bodhisattva receives merit but does not grasp merit.” “Does not grasp merit” clarifies that this does not mean utterly failing to retain or receive any conditioned or unconditioned merit whatsoever. It merely precludes retaining conditioned merit; it does not mean failing to receive unconditioned merit.

However, if a bodhisattva may be said to receive merit, he may also be said to retain merit. If he may be said not to retain merit, he may also be said not to receive merit. Therefore, the statement that a bodhisattva receives merit highlights how these terms interweave and mutually illuminate one another.

A further explanation: Why does it speak only of receiving merit and not of retaining it? Because retaining might be confused with grasping at characteristics, it speaks only of receiving merit and does not speak of retaining it.

+ Therefore, a bodhisattva retains merit: This clarifies that he retains supramundane, unconditioned merit. It may also be said: “Therefore, a bodhisattva does not retain merit.” Yet since it has already been said here that he retains merit, one should clearly understand that the Venerable Subhuti’s statement about not retaining it was an emphatic expression concerning only one aspect. Thus, one should know that it is also possible to speak of retaining, receiving, not retaining, and not receiving.

– The Treatise states:

+ “Someone gives rise to such a thought,” and so forth: The Treatise formulates its response to the doubt that arose, in a manner no different from the sutra.

The Treatise uses two verses to explain this passage of the sutra.

– The first verse formulates a question and answer to resolve the doubt, clarifying that when a bodhisattva attains the patience of non-arising, cause and effect are not lost and this is not annihilation:

(The cause consisting of merit is not lost,

Nor is its supreme resultant reward.

Upon attaining supreme patience, they are not lost,

Because the stainless fruit is attained.)

– The second verse explains this and presents an analogy to show that conditioned merit cannot equal unconditioned merit:

(To reveal the superior characteristic of merit,

An analogy is therefore given.

That merit has no conditioned reward;

It is thus received but not grasped.)

+ In the preceding passage of the sutra, a doubt arose. The question now is: How is that doubt eliminated? The verse answers: “The cause consisting of merit is not lost, nor is its supreme resultant reward.” These two lines explain the earlier statement in the sutra: “You should not give rise to such a thought,” namely, that the characteristics of all dharmas are annihilated.

They clarify that a bodhisattva who attains the patience of non-arising on the First Ground does not lose the myriad practices cultivated throughout one asamkhya kalpa during the stages preceding the grounds. Here it is explained that, by relying on the merit of the stages preceding the grounds as the cause, one can attain the genuine unconditioned decisive understanding of the First Ground; thus, the cause is not lost.

From the First Ground upward, the supramundane patience of non-arising is supreme unconditioned merit. It is unlike the Two Vehicles’ “reduction of the body to ashes and extinction of cognition”; therefore, its resultant reward is likewise not lost. Although it is said that neither cause nor effect is lost, it has not yet been stated when they are not lost.

Therefore, the third line of the verse answers: “Upon attaining supreme patience, they are not lost.”

From this point onward, the verse explains a later sentence in the sutra: “If a bodhisattva attains the patience of non-arising, his merit surpasses the preceding merit.” This clarifies that when a bodhisattva attains the supreme patience of non-arising, and even when the practices of the ten grounds are perfected and buddhahood is realized, cause and effect are still not lost. Why are they not lost when this supreme patience is attained?

The fourth line of the verse says: “Because the stainless fruit is attained.” This explains that when a bodhisattva on the First Ground eliminates the two obstructions, he attains the stainless fruit in the true pure land of the reward body. This belongs to the supramundane, unconditioned Dharma-nature and grows ever more radiant and supreme; therefore, it is not lost.

+ “To reveal the superior characteristic of merit, an analogy is therefore given”: These two lines explain the earlier statement in the sutra concerning the giving of the seven precious substances filling worlds as numerous as the sands of the Ganges. They clarify that the analogy involving the sands of the Ganges is presented to reveal through comparison the superiority of unconditioned merit, thereby confirming that such merit is never lost.

+ The verse says: “That merit has no conditioned reward; it is thus received but not grasped.” These final two lines of the second verse explain the statement, “Because bodhisattvas do not grasp merit,” and the passage that follows it in the sutra.

+ “That merit”: This is the supreme, unconditioned merit of the First Ground.

+ “Has no conditioned reward”: This clarifies that such supreme, unconditioned merit has no conditioned worldly reward.

+ “It is thus received but not grasped”: Such supreme, unconditioned merit is received, while such conditioned merit is not retained. The meanings of receiving, retaining, not receiving, and not retaining are the same as explained above.

+ “What does this mean? Although he does not rely upon merit,” through “adorned with merit”: This explains the first two lines of the preceding verse, formulating a response to the doubt and clarifying that this is not annihilation.

+ “Why, in reliance upon that merit, is an analogy given once again?”: This asks about the intent of the analogy presented in the first two lines of the following verse. It is answered by the final two lines of the preceding verse. The verse says:

Upon attaining supreme patience, they are not lost,

Because the stainless fruit is attained.

This clarifies the point of comparison in the analogy: when the patience of non-arising is attained, cause and effect are not lost; this does not signify annihilation.

+ “What does this mean?”: This asks why the comparison involving the merit of giving precious jewels—according to which a bodhisattva who realizes the patience of non-arising acquires abundant merit—does not imply annihilation.

+ From “Someone gives rise to this thought” onward, through “therefore, they are not lost”: This sets forth the doubting person and the doubt concerning cause and effect.

To prevent and eliminate that doubt, an analogy is presented for comparison, clarifying that when the patience of non-arising is attained, cause and effect are not lost and are not annihilated.

+ “As the sutra says: ‘Why is this?’” through “does not speak of the characteristic of annihilation”: This cites the sutra in conclusion. However, this portion of the sutra was omitted and is missing from the earlier translation. From the passage cited by the Treatise, it is clear that it should have been present.

+ “If, furthermore, a bodhisattva knows that all dharmas are without self and attains the patience of non-arising”: This sentence is set forth because it is about to be explained.

+ “There are two kinds of non-self, yet the two kinds of characteristics of non-self do not arise”: This explains the preceding statement in the sutra: “knows that all dharmas are without self.”

+ “Therefore, he receives but does not grasp”: This states that when a bodhisattva attains the patience of non-arising, he possesses the two kinds of decisive understanding of non-self, yet the two kinds of characteristics of non-self do not arise. He receives only the merit of the patience of non-arising within the mind-ground and does not retain the conditioned merit of the stages preceding the grounds. This sentence confirms the preceding meaning and gives rise to what follows.

+ “As the sutra says” and the passage that follows: This cites the sutra in conclusion.

+ “Why does a bodhisattva receive merit but not grasp merit?”: The author of the Treatise asks about the passage of the sutra just summarized. If a bodhisattva receives merit, this means that he retains it. Why, then, does it say that he receives it while also saying that he does not retain it? The explanation is precisely the verse:

That merit has no conditioned reward;

It is thus received but not grasped.

+ From the sentence “What does this mean?” onward: The author of the Treatise explains the half-verse just cited.

15. Subhuti! If someone says that the Tathagata either departs or comes, or walks, stands, sits, or lies down, that person does not understand the meaning taught by the Tathagata: This is the fifteenth passage of the sutra in the Section on Eliminating Doubts.

+ The reason for this continuation: Previously, it was extensively explained that the Tathagata's Dharma-body has always been immutable; its essence transcends the myriad characteristics, is tranquil and eternally abiding, and is not attained through cultivation.

Next, the preceding passage of the sutra made clear that bodhisattvas attain supramundane supreme understanding and receive undefiled merit, without grasping the defiled merit of the world. On this account, someone gives rise to a doubt: When bodhisattvas were at the causal ground and first brought forth the vow to liberate all sentient beings, they dedicated the roots of goodness they cultivated to all sentient beings.

The doubt is raised: If bodhisattvas attain the true Dharma-body, transcend the world, and receive undefiled recompense, they do not receive the defiled recompense of the three realms. Sentient beings remain in the world, receiving defiled fruits and not receiving undefiled recompense. Yet although the recompenses of gods and humans alike are dharmas within the three realms, human beings still cannot receive the recompense of gods; how much less could they partake of the undefiled merit belonging to supramundane recompense!

Thus, the mundane and the supramundane are clearly distinct. How, then, can the roots of goodness cultivated by bodhisattvas enable sentient beings to partake of such benefits? From this, one might infer that although bodhisattvas transcend the three realms and realize the true Dharma-body, they must still come and go to liberate the myriad beings and receive the recompense of the three realms; it cannot clearly be said that, beyond the world, they neither go nor come.

If they neither go nor come, sentient beings cannot partake of the bodhisattvas' merit. The vows brought forth by bodhisattvas would then be false and entirely without benefit.

In order to eliminate this doubt, the answer makes clear that although the Buddhas and bodhisattvas, in their true Dharma-body, neither come nor go, their responsive bodies come and go in accordance with beings' receptivity to liberate the myriad kinds of beings. Sentient beings' reception of these benefits is genuine and not false. Thus, sentient beings can partake of the bodhisattvas' roots of goodness, and the original vows are not false. This does not mean that the Dharma-body assumes the four deportments of walking, standing, sitting, and lying down to teach sentient beings. Therefore, the following section explains this matter.

+ Subhuti! If someone says that the Tathagata either comes or goes, and so forth, that person does not understand what the Buddha has taught: That is, someone sees that the Responsive Buddha comes and goes, teaches the Dharma in accordance with beings' receptivity, and benefits the myriad beings, and therefore supposes that the true Buddha likewise possesses the four deportments of walking, standing, and so forth, receives recompense in the three realms in accordance with beings' receptivity, and abides in the world to liberate beings. Hence it is said that this person does not understand the meanings taught by the Buddha. This makes clear that the person does not understand the sameness and difference among the three Buddhas taught by the Tathagata.

On this account, two kinds of doubt arise. The verses in the following portion of the Treatise introduce the purport of these doubts, which will be explained in the analogy of fine particles.

+ Why is the Tathagata said to come from nowhere and go nowhere?: This explains the preceding statement in the sutra: Why is it supposed that the Tathagata comes, goes, sits, and lies down?

+ Does not understand the meanings taught by the Buddha: Because one sees that the responsive body comes and goes, teaches the Dharma in accordance with beings' receptivity, and liberates the myriad beings, one immediately supposes that the Dharma-body does likewise; hence this is called not understanding. This makes clear that the Tathagata's responsive body comes and goes, whereas the Dharma-body has no coming, going, and so forth.

With reference to the two Buddhas—the Recompense-body and Responsive-body—one may speak of the Tathagata, “Thus Come.” With reference to the Dharma-body Buddha, however, one should not say Tathagata, “Thus Come,” but should properly say “Thus Abiding.” The reason is that, concerning the Recompense Buddha, one may speak of first bringing forth the aspiration for bodhi, cultivating the practices of the ten bhumis, and proceeding from the cause toward the fruit.

Since the fruit is considered in relation to the cause, this Buddha may be called the Tathagata, “Thus Come.” Since there is the true recompense, there must also be its reflected image. Therefore, the Responsive Buddha follows the true Buddha and may likewise be said to proceed from the cause toward the fruit and be called the Tathagata, “Thus Come.” The Dharma-body Buddha, however, has always been tranquil, and its essential nature is perfect and complete.

It is not a dharma attained through cultivation and cannot be said to proceed from the cause toward the fruit. It should properly be called “Thus Abiding” and cannot be called “Thus Come.”

+ Why is the Tathagata said to come from nowhere and go nowhere?: The Tathagata's Dharma-body does not go from here to there in order to enter nirvana; hence it is said to “come from nowhere.” Nor does it come from there to here—that is, come into the world to teach and liberate sentient beings; hence it is called “going nowhere.”

+ Therefore, he is called the Tathagata: According to the Indian text, the term is Tathagata, rendered into Chinese as “Thus Abiding”; here it should say “Thus Abiding.” However, because the rendering established long ago by Master Kumarajiva is followed, the epithet “Tathagata” is retained.

The Treatise uses two verses to explain this passage of the sutra.

+ The first verse explains the doubt: It explains the portion of the sutra from “If he comes or goes, lies down or sits,” and so forth, through “does not understand the meanings taught by the Buddha.”

(That merit responds as recompense

In order to liberate sentient beings;

Such is the spontaneous working of karma—

The Buddhas appear throughout the ten directions.)

+ The second verse: It explains the portion of the sutra beginning with “Why?” and continuing thereafter. It raises the two questions in the sutra and introduces the analogy of fine particles.

(The Buddha's transformation-body comes and goes;

The Tathagata is ever unmoving.

Within that dharma-dhatu,

They are neither one nor different.)

– The first line of the first verse says: “That merit responds as recompense.” The doubt raised above was: A bodhisattva attains the true Dharma-body, leaves the world, does not receive the recompense of the three realms, and neither comes nor goes; how, then, can sentient beings partake of the bodhisattva's merit? Therefore, the verse answers:

That merit responds as recompense

In order to liberate sentient beings.

+ Merit: This refers to the roots of goodness cultivated by the bodhisattva.

+ Responds as recompense: In order to liberate sentient beings, the bodhisattva manifests within the three realms and teaches through the three kinds of action, enabling sentient beings to obtain benefit. Thus, the bodhisattva's merit is bestowed upon sentient beings so that they may partake of it. This does not mean that the Dharma-body comes and goes.

+ An objection states: It has already been extensively explained above that the Dharma Buddha and Recompense Buddha are tranquil, eternally abiding, and neither come nor go. Since they have no mind of coming and going, how does the Responsive Buddha come and go to liberate the myriad beings? If so, do the Buddhas, the Tathagatas, possess a mind of coming and going, or do they not? Therefore, the final two lines of the verse answer:

Such is the spontaneous working of karma—

The Buddhas appear throughout the ten directions.

This makes clear that after the Buddhas have attained the Way, through the wondrous power of their original vows, they naturally manifest responsive bodies throughout the worlds of the ten directions, in accord with the receptivity of sentient beings, and teach and liberate them. Their coming and going do not depend upon the force of deliberate intention.

+ What is the meaning of this? It makes clear that the transformation-bodies of the Buddhas have functions, and so forth: This explains the first half of the verse, framing the intention so as to answer the doubt. It shows that although the Dharma-body neither comes nor goes, the wondrous functions of the transformation-body include coming and going in order to benefit the myriad beings.

+ From the words “The verse says” onward: This uses the latter half of the verse to explain and confirm the meaning of its first half.

– The second verse: Its first two lines state:

The Buddha's transformation-body comes and goes;

The Tathagata is ever unmoving.

+ The Buddha's transformation-body comes and goes: This reiterates the preceding verse and makes clear that the Responsive Buddha comes and goes. “The Tathagata is ever unmoving” formally explains the sutra passage: “Why? Because the Tathagata comes from nowhere and goes nowhere.”

Furthermore, this is intended to frame a doubt and introduce the following analogy of fine particles. It is not yet the passage of the sutra that compares this with the giving of immeasurable quantities of the seven treasures. It explains that making offerings to the Responsive Buddha and upholding the dharmas taught by the Responsive Buddha are no different from doing so with respect to the true Buddha.

The latter half of the verse formally introduces the analogy of fine particles, making clear that the three Buddhas are neither different nor one and the same.

Why was the first half of the verse composed, thereby introducing the corresponding passage of scripture concerning the merit of giving the seven treasures that follows? From the preceding section of the scripture, someone may give rise to the first doubt: If the Buddha’s Dharma-body neither comes nor goes, whereas the Responsive Buddha comes and goes in accordance with the ways in which beings in the world respond to him, and if sentient beings gain merit by making offerings to him, this would mean that sentient beings enjoy the merit accumulated by the bodhisattva on the causal ground. This meaning is incorrect. Why is it incorrect? Because this transformation body of the Responsive Buddha, which comes and goes, has no real substance.

Furthermore, the fifth section of the scripture above has already made clear that the Responsive Buddha possesses the three characteristics of arising, abiding, and ceasing, and therefore is not the Buddha. Next, the sixth section of the scripture explains that the Responsive Buddha does not generate the aspiration to cultivate the path, attain the fruit, and expound the Dharma; consequently, he should not be the Buddha at all.

Taking these three scriptural passages as evidence, the Tathagata’s six-zhang body should not be the Buddha. If it is not the Buddha, why does making offerings to the Responsive Buddha mean that sentient beings enjoy the bodhisattva’s merit? Moreover, if merit is gained by making offerings to the Responsive Buddha, how does this differ from making offerings to the true Buddha?

Because such a doubt exists, the Treatise Master composed this half-verse to introduce the intended meaning. Here it clarifies that the Responsive Body comes and goes, whereas the Dharma-body and Reward-body are serene and neither come nor go; hence they are called eternally unmoving.

This then gives rise to a second doubt: If the Responsive and Transformation Buddha comes and goes, whereas the Dharma-body Buddha and Reward-body Buddha neither come nor go, do these three kinds of Buddha abide in one place, like the members of the Sangha in the Sangha hall, thoroughly and profoundly merged, identical and indistinguishable? Or do they distinctly abide in different places, like Akshobhya Buddha in the East and Amitayus Buddha in the West? If they merge as one, there should be no distinction between coming and going and neither coming nor going. If they are distinctly separate, then the three Buddhas each have an independent essence.

+ How is this so? The latter half of the verse answers:

Within that dharmadhatu,

They are neither one nor different.

This explains that, within the dharmadhatu of true suchness, it cannot be definitively said that the three Buddhas are profoundly merged into one, gathered together and abiding in a single place. Nor can it be said that they are separate and distinct.

There is also another explanation:

Within that dharmadhatu,

They are neither one nor different.

Here the Treatise Master provisionally constructs a question and answer in order to introduce the subsequent analogy of minute particles. Why does this introduce the following section? Above, it was extensively explained that the Dharma-body Buddha and Reward-body Buddha are neither one nor different; this also applies to the Responsive Buddha, who is neither one nor different from them.

Furthermore, this section of the scripture has made clear that the Dharma-body Buddha and Reward-body Buddha neither come nor go, whereas the Responsive Buddha comes and goes. From this, a doubt arises. If the Dharma-body Buddha and Reward-body Buddha neither come nor go, then they abide eternally.

Since the Responsive Buddha comes and goes, he is impermanent. If so, are these three Buddhas one or different? From this, a further doubt arises: When the Buddhas of the ten directions eliminate delusions and attain the fruit, do they gather and abide in a single place within the true dharmadhatu, profoundly and wholly merged into one, or do they abide separately in different places?

In relation to the true suchness and Buddha-nature inherent in all sentient beings, are they one or different? Are they many or few?

Because such doubts exist, these two lines of verse fully set forth the meaning of the oneness and difference just called into question, provisionally forming a question and answer and linking this passage to the following section. “Within that dharmadhatu” expresses the question: when these three Buddhas have completely eliminated the afflictions, do they abide in one place within the dharmadhatu of true suchness, or do they abide in different places? The following line of verse therefore answers: “They are neither one nor different.”

The intent of the answer is to explain that when the Buddhas eliminate the afflictions and attain the Way, it cannot be said that these three kinds of Buddha abide in one place or in different places within the dharmadhatu of true suchness. This clarifies “neither coming nor going, coming from nowhere and going nowhere.” It explains the second line of the verse and uses the scripture to conclude the point.

+ From the words “What does this mean?” onward, a question and answer are presented to explain the scripture, elucidating that “Tathagata” means “abiding in suchness.”

END OF FASCICLE 9