金剛仙論

16. Venerable Subhuti! If a good man or good woman were to grind the three-thousand-great-thousand world-system into fine particles, and so forth…: This passage of scripture is the sixteenth scriptural passage in the Section on Dispelling Doubts.

+ The reason for its continuation: It is to answer the doubt raised above.

The doubt states: If the Manifested Buddha has coming and going, while the other two Buddhas—the Dharma Buddha and the Reward Buddha—have no coming or going, then when these three Buddhas, together with all Buddhas of the ten directions, have completely eliminated every affliction and attained the fruition of the Path, do they abide in one place or in different places within the Dharma-realm of true suchness? When united with the nature of true suchness belonging to all sentient beings, are they one or different, many or few? This doubt also appeared in an earlier section of the scripture.

In the verse of the Treatise in the preceding passage, the point giving rise to this scriptural section was briefly introduced, and a question and answer were set forth:

Within that Dharma-realm,

They are neither one nor different.

This scriptural passage is about to explain fully the meaning of one and different, many and few, in that doubt. Therefore, the scripture answers by presenting the analogy of the fine particles of a three-thousand-great-thousand world-system. This makes clear that grinding a three-thousand-great-thousand world-system into extremely minute particles produces particles without form, smell, taste, or tangibility.

The tiny motes of dust that we now see in a window by means of sunlight are coarse particles. Only after dividing such a coarse particle into three hundred parts is it called a fine particle. Such fine particles cannot be seen by ordinary beings or followers of the Two Vehicles.

Moreover, these are still not subtle particles. They must be made into particles without form, taste, and so forth. That is, such fine particles have no form, taste, or shape, nor do they have the four directions, above, or below.

Although they are numerous, it cannot be said that they abide in one place, abide in different places, or combine into one. This is used as a comparison for the three Buddhas together with the Buddhas of the ten directions, who are likewise immeasurably numerous.

Yet although these Buddhas are numerous, when they have completely eliminated all kinds of afflictions, it cannot be said that they are one and the same or that they are different within the Dharma-realm of true suchness; nor can it be said that they abide in one place or in different places. As for the nature of pure liberation—the Buddha-nature within sentient beings—although sentient beings are numerous when considered in relation to sentient beings, within the principle of true suchness they have always been equal. Thus, it likewise cannot be said that they are one or different, many or few.

In order to explain this doubt, the following passage sets forth the clarification.

+ Using the fine particles of a three-thousand-great-thousand world-system: This sets forth the quantity of the extremely minute particles of a three-thousand-great-thousand world-system.

+ Furthermore, take a number of worlds equal to the number of such fine particles: Here, subtle fine particles are called worlds. This sphere is spoken of in terms of nature; therefore, each particle is discussed in relation to a world and is also called a world, as well as a fine particle.

+ Grind them into fine particles: This means further grinding the extremely minute particles into fine particles without form, smell, taste, or tangibility.

+ Asamkhya: This clarifies that not only is a three-thousand-great-thousand world-system ground into fine particles, but asamkhya worlds are also ground into fine particles. They are likewise called particles without form or taste and cannot be counted; hence they are called asamkhya.

+ Venerable Subhuti! What do you think? Should the number of those fine particles be considered great?: This clarifies that the number of worlds “being ground” is vast. The Buddha therefore asked Venerable Subhuti: According to the reflections and calculations of your mind, do you consider the number of those fine particles to be great?

Venerable Subhuti understood the Tathagata’s intent and replied: The number of those fine particles is exceedingly great, O Blessed One!

This explains that the Tathagata had just said that the number of those fine particles was exceedingly great. Although numerous, because they have no form, smell, taste, tangibility, shape, or spatial location, they do not obstruct one another. Thus, it cannot be said that they abide in one place, abide in different places, or combine into one.

This is used as an analogy for the Buddhas of the ten directions, who are also exceedingly numerous and immeasurable. If these Buddhas of the ten directions are spoken of in relation to “practitioners,” each practitioner personally becomes one Buddha. Since practitioners are numerous, the Buddhas are likewise numerous.

Because these Buddhas are numerous when considered in relation to practitioners, they cannot be said to be one. Because the two obstructions have been completely eliminated and they have attained the equal Dharma-body without differentiation, they cannot be said to be different. As for the quantity of the particles produced by grinding, these are particles without form or taste.

Although exceedingly numerous, they have no shape, no form or taste, and none of the six directions; hence they cannot be said to occupy one place. This is an analogy for the Buddhas of the ten directions: when they eliminate the two classes of obstructions and enter the Dharma-realm of true suchness, they have no obstructive forms and no spatial location. Therefore, it cannot be said that they abide in one place or in different places.

Venerable Subhuti understood the Buddha’s intent and therefore respectfully answered as above.

Some among the assembly consequently gave rise to a doubt: Previously, it was said that when fine particles are ground into emptiness, they have neither the six directions nor shape. Yet it is also said that the number of those fine particles is exceedingly great. Why do these two statements contradict each other? Therefore, the text says: Why is this? It then answers: If those fine particles truly existed, the Buddha would not call them fine particles. This explains: If those fine particles truly possessed the six directions and shape, and if their form, smell, taste, and tangibility were not nonexistent, the Buddha would not provisionally speak of grinding extremely minute particles into particles without form or taste.

Another doubt arises: If the essence of these fine particles is empty, without form or taste, and unreal, why does the Tathagata call them fine particles? Since the Tathagata calls them fine particles, it should be clearly known that the fine particles are real and not nonexistent. Therefore, the text states: Why is this? It then answers: The fine particles spoken of by the Buddha are not fine particles. This makes clear that the Tathagata spoke in reliance upon conventional truth, describing the illusory fine particles; hence the text says: The Buddha speaks of them as fine particles. Yet those fine particles are illusory and unreal, and have always been quiescent; hence the text says: They are not fine particles.

Since these fine particles are illusory, how could there be any real particles that could be expressed? Therefore, the Buddha speaks of them as fine particles. Accordingly, when the Tathagata above spoke of particles without form, smell, taste, tangibility, or shape, he was speaking of particles where there are no particles. It may also be said: Therefore, the Buddha says that they are not fine particles. This uses the emptiness of the phenomenon to clarify that the intrinsic essence of dharmas arising through causes and conditions is empty.

– World-Honored One! The Tathagata says that the three-thousandfold great-thousand world is precisely not a world: The foregoing clarified the analogy of minute particles, speaking with reference to what is extremely small. Here, the three-thousandfold world is discussed on the basis of particles. Yet another doubt arises: Above, the Buddha said that extremely minute particles have no real substance and are therefore empty. But it is precisely from extremely minute particles that the coarse world is formed. If extremely minute particles are unreal, how can there be coarse things such as this three-thousandfold world? Since that coarse world is formed from extremely minute particles, if extremely minute particles are empty, how is it that the eyes perceive coarse things such as the three-thousandfold world as existing? Because coarse things exist, it should be clearly known that extremely minute particles also exist. Therefore, the answer states: The Tathagata says that the three-thousandfold great-thousand world is precisely not a world. This clarifies that the Tathagata provisionally speaks of the three-thousandfold world as constituting one world. If there were a single world not formed from other things, that world could truly exist. But there is no world that is not formed from other things; therefore, it is unreal. Because it is unreal, the text states: The Tathagata says that the three-thousandfold world is precisely not a world. Since these extremely minute particles are empty, it should be clearly known that the three-thousandfold world is likewise false and unreal. Therefore, the Buddha speaks of the three-thousandfold world in order to clarify this: If there were a single world that was real and not illusory, the Buddha would not provisionally speak of the three-thousandfold world. Since the Buddha has spoken of gathering the three-thousandfold world into a single world, it should be known to be false and unreal.

+ Why is this? Someone might consequently give rise to this doubt: If both minute particles and the world are unreal, why does the Tathagata say that the accumulation of minute particles brings the world into being and that the dispersal of minute particles causes the world to perish? Taking those sacred words as evidence, one knows that minute particles are real; how, then, can they be said to be empty? Therefore, the text states: Why is this? The answer is: If the world truly existed, it would be a single composite characteristic.

+ Here, in speaking of the world, minute particles themselves are called a world, thereby explaining why the three-thousandfold world is unreal. If the world of minute particles were real, then particles from the four directions would gather together and become so profoundly united as to form a single composite characteristic, constituting one world that could not be differentiated; it therefore should not bear the designation “three-thousandfold.” Yet because the designation “three-thousandfold” exists, it should be known that the world capable of being formed from minute particles is false and unreal.

Because those minute particles are false and unreal, their substance is empty and has no form or shape. Thus, they come, go, and pass back and forth without obstruction; even the Iron Encircling Mountains do not impede one another. According to principle, in the eastern direction, unconditioned coming and going are unobstructed and unimpeded.

In the western direction, and likewise in the southern, northern, upper, and lower directions—all six directions—minute particles come and go without obstruction or impediment. Since those minute particles do not obstruct one another, neither do they possess the characteristic of aggregation. They are entirely empty and without form or shape; even Mount Sumeru cannot be seen.

From this, it is evident that all conditioned worlds, whether coarse or subtle, are false and unreal and have always been quiescent. It is only in accordance with the deluded feelings of worldly people that one speaks of a world as existing. This clarifies that the substance of dependently arisen dharmas has always been empty.

From this, a doubt arises and an objection is raised: If a single composite characteristic were a real characteristic, why did the Tathagata say that the three-thousandfold world is combined into a single composite characteristic? The answer is: When the Tathagata speaks of a single composite characteristic, he relies upon conventional designation and speaks of a single composite characteristic within the functioning of false dharmas. “It is precisely not a single composite characteristic” means that, when considered according to principle, there is no single world that is so profoundly united as to form one composite, independently of the three-thousandfold world. Therefore, it is said: It is precisely not a single composite characteristic.

+ The Buddha said: Subhuti! A single composite characteristic is precisely ineffable: This clarifies that conditioned dharmas are false and unreal. There is no real world so profoundly united as to form a single composite characteristic that could be spoken of. Therefore, it is said: It is precisely ineffable.

From this, another doubt arises: If the world, as a single composite characteristic, is unreal, sentient beings should neither perceive it nor make use of it. Yet now one plainly sees this world, with the houses and clothing of the material world being used and enjoyed. Since they are used and enjoyed, it should be clearly known that the coarse world is real.

Since the coarse world is real, extremely minute particles must also be real. How, then, can it be said that both the coarse and subtle aspects of minute particles and the world are false and unreal? Therefore, the sutra answers: Yet ordinary people greedily cling to this matter.

This clarifies that ordinary people, through the causes and conditions of clinging to inverted characteristics, grasp what is false as real; it does not mean that the coarse world possesses a real nature. Since that from which the coarse world is formed is unreal, it should be clearly known that extremely minute particles are likewise false. Why is this?

Because the ordinary people mentioned above greedily cling to this matter, another doubt consequently arises: Ordinary people, because their minds are inverted, cling to minute particles, to the coarse and subtle aspects of the world, and to false conditioned phenomena, mistakenly regarding them as real. The Tathagata has no inverted mind that clings to characteristics, so why does he speak of minute particles and the world as existing?

Why does the Tathagata also say: “I perceive minute particles and the world”? If the Tathagata says, “I perceive,” then what I perceive belongs to the self and is distinguished as external or internal.

Moreover, why does the Tathagata also say that views such as self, person, sentient being, and so forth originally existed, but that afterward, by contemplating the substance of self and dharmas as empty, one attained the superior understanding of the two kinds of selflessness and only then eliminated the delusions concerning self, person, and so forth, this being called attainment of the Way? Since the Tathagata has spoken in this manner, taking this as evidence, one would clearly know that the world of minute particles and all coarse and subtle dharmas truly exist and are not false; therefore, they are not empty.

Because there is such a doubt, the text states: Why is this?

+ The Buddha, now about to explain this meaning, asked the Venerable Subhuti: If someone were to say, “The Buddha also speaks of views of self, person, sentient being, living being, and so forth,” what do you think, Venerable One? Would that person’s statement be right speech?: This clarifies that the Buddha asked the Venerable Subhuti: If someone, harboring the doubt stated above, were to think that the Buddha said: “Originally, self and dharmas truly existed.

Afterward, by contemplating that self and those dharmas, one attained the superior understanding of the emptiness of self and dharmas, eliminated the two kinds of attachment, attained the absence of self and dharmas, and this was called attainment of the Way,” would that person’s statement accord with principle and constitute right speech? The Venerable Subhuti replied: It is not right speech, World-Honored One! This clarifies that the doubter’s foregoing statement does not accord with principle or with the Buddha’s intent; therefore, he replied that it was not.

+ Why is this, World-Honored One? Because the views of self, person, sentient being, and living being spoken of by the Tathagata are precisely not views of self, person, sentient being, or living being: This explains the statement: Why is what this person has said unreasonable and not right speech? It clarifies that people of the Two Vehicles believe that views of self and what belongs to self—such as self, person, sentient being, and living being—originally truly existed. Afterward, by contemplating those two kinds of self and what belongs to self as empty, they could eliminate those views of self, person, and so forth, and say: “I have realized the superior understanding of selflessness.” They regard this as the true superior understanding.

+ If one holds that the Tathagata also speaks in this way and regards this as true, then such a statement is not correctly spoken. Yet all Buddhas and Tathagatas clearly understand that all dharmas have always been quiescent; there is not even a self or dharmas that could be eliminated, much less views concerning the twofold emptiness of self and dharmas that could still be retained. Therefore it is said: They are precisely not the various views of self, person, sentient being, and life span.

Such views of no-self and so forth constitute superior understanding for the sravakas, but an obstruction for bodhisattvas (?). Here it is made clear that the Buddha teaches that one must contemplate self and dharmas as originally empty and ultimately quiescent. There is no self or dharma that can be rendered empty; even the afflictions have always been quiescent, and thus there are no afflictions that can be severed. This differs from the Two Vehicles, which see self and dharmas as originally existent and, only now attaining the superior understanding of their twofold emptiness, eliminate those delusions and call this attainment of the path.

+ “That is called not a view of self, a view of person, and so forth”: This jointly summarizes the twofold emptiness of self and dharmas.

Practitioners of the Two Vehicles clearly perceive the emptiness of self and attain the superior understanding that there is no self, person, and so forth. They regard this as true; therefore it is said: “That is called not a view of self, a view of person, and so forth.”

+ It may also be said: “That is called the various views of self, person, sentient being, and life span”: This clarifies what was stated above—namely, clearly understanding that self and dharmas have throughout past and present been tranquil and have never arisen; directly perceiving the equality of true suchness; and realizing bodhi through the Patience of Non-arising at the First Bhumi, continuing up to the unsurpassed bodhi of Buddhahood.

This differs from the Lesser Vehicle, which clings to the views that there is no self and no dharma and regards them as the true path. The Buddha spoke in this way; therefore it is written: “That is called the Buddha’s teaching that the various views of self, person, sentient being, and so forth are false and unreal.” This clarifies that these are called false views of emptiness and of the absence of self and person. From this, another doubt arises: If clinging to the views that there is no self and no dharma does not constitute attainment of the path, then which dharmas should one contemplate, which minds should one arouse, and which dharmas should one realize for it to be called attainment of the path?

Therefore the reply is: “Subhuti! A bodhisattva who has aroused the mind of bodhi should, with regard to all dharmas, know in this way,” and so forth. This takes the wisdom of realization at the First Bhumi as the mind of bodhi and explains the meaning according to which people are exhorted: If one wishes to realize the true path from the First Bhumi upward, then with regard to coarse and subtle conditioned things—the existence of self and dharmas, the absence of self and dharmas, and falsity—one should give rise to such knowledge, vision, and faith.

+ “Know in this way”: This clarifies that a practitioner dwelling on the preceding level knows them indistinctly through the wisdom derived from hearing and through the five branches of worldly learning.

+ “See in this way”: This clarifies that a practitioner dwelling on the higher level attains knowledge and vision of the supramundane ultimate truth.

+ “Believe in this way”: This clarifies that the two preceding kinds of practitioners both rely upon the immeasurable merits of samadhi as the basis of their faith.

This explains that, by means of samadhi and those two kinds of wisdom, such a practitioner perceives true suchness and Buddha-nature and eliminates every attachment to the existence and nonexistence of all the aforementioned dharmas.

+ “In this way, one does not abide in the characteristics of dharmas”: Having given rise to knowledge, vision, faith, and understanding regarding false conditioned dharmas, one does not become attached to them.

+ “Why?”: Some, upon hearing that a bodhisattva does not abide in the characteristics of dharmas, might suspect that a bodhisattva abides neither in worldly dharmas nor in supramundane dharmas. Therefore it is written: “Why?”

The Buddha replied: “Subhuti! What is called the characteristics of dharmas—the Tathagata teaches that those characteristics of dharmas are precisely not the characteristics of dharmas.”

+ The “characteristics of dharmas” mentioned first refer to the characteristics of existence and nonexistence in worldly conditioned dharmas such as form and so forth. The “characteristics of dharmas” mentioned afterward are the characteristics of the unconditioned dharma of supramundane true suchness.

+ “The Tathagata teaches that they are precisely not the characteristics of dharmas”: This clarifies that the characteristics of worldly conditioned dharmas taught by the Tathagata are not the characteristics of the unconditioned dharma of supramundane true suchness. The characteristics of the dharma of supramundane true suchness are precisely not the false worldly characteristics of the existence and nonexistence of dharmas.

+ “That is called the characteristics of dharmas”: What is thus not the characteristics of worldly, conditioned, contaminated dharmas is precisely the characteristics of the unconditioned dharma of supramundane true suchness. They may also be called the characteristics of worldly conditioned dharmas.

+ The earlier phrase “does not abide in the characteristics of dharmas” means merely that one does not abide in the characteristics of existence and nonexistence belonging to worldly conditioned dharmas. It does not mean that one fails to abide in the characteristics of the supramundane unconditioned dharma. How could one hear that one does not abide in the characteristics of dharmas and immediately conclude that one abides in none of the characteristics of conditioned or unconditioned, worldly or supramundane dharmas?

Up to this point, the sutra has explained the doubt concerning the line in the preceding verse: “Within that dharma realm, they are neither one nor different.”

– Subhuti! Suppose a bodhisattva were to give in generosity the seven kinds of precious substances filling immeasurable asamkhyeya worlds: A doubt had previously arisen. In the earlier analogy of particles of dust, it was explained that the three Buddhas are neither one and the same nor different. Although the three Buddhas have been clarified, according to the preceding sutra passage there should be only two and not three. Why did the sixth preceding section state: “Sakyamuni is neither the Buddha nor a teacher of the Dharma,” while the subsequent preceding sutra passage said that a transformation Buddha comes and goes to teach sentient beings and that making offerings to him brings merit? Clearly, the earlier and later passages contradict one another. The present doubt is whether the response body is definitively a Buddha or not a Buddha. If he is a Buddha, is the merit obtained by making offerings to this response Buddha the same as that obtained from the other two Buddhas, or is there a difference? Is the scriptural Dharma taught by the transformation Buddha the true Dharma or not the true Dharma? If one receives the Dharma taught by the response Buddha, are the benefits attained the same as the merit gained by receiving and upholding the teachings proclaimed by the reward Buddha, or is there a difference? What offense is incurred by a malicious person who slanders and harms that Buddha?

In reply, the response Buddha is a Buddha, and the scriptural teachings he proclaims are the true Dharma. The merit obtained by making offerings to him and by receiving and upholding his teaching is the same as that associated with the preceding two Buddhas. Likewise, a malicious slanderer incurs the same offense. Therefore this analogy is presented. Giving in generosity the seven kinds of precious substances filling asamkhyeya worlds cannot compare with a person who, in the presence of the response Buddha, arouses the mind of bodhi and receives and upholds the Prajnaparamita Sutra taught by the response Buddha—even as little as a single four-line verse—and who expounds it to others. The merit thereby obtained surpasses that of the former case by immeasurable asamkhyeyas of times.

The doubt above concerns the response Buddha in general. Why, then, does the sutra state only that receiving and upholding the scriptural Dharma taught by the response Buddha brings abundant merit, without stating that making offerings to the response Buddha brings abundant merit? Because the immeasurable merit attained by receiving and upholding the scriptural Dharma taught by the response Buddha makes it evident that making offerings to the response Buddha likewise brings exceedingly abundant merit; therefore it is not stated separately.

A question is raised: If making offerings to the scriptural teaching expounded by an Manifested Buddha is no different from making offerings to the True Buddha, why, when that Manifested Buddha abides in the world, teaching, transforming, and expounding the Dharma, is this not called an Manifested Buddha’s exposition of the Dharma? Therefore, the scripture raises the question: Why, when expounding it for others, is it not called an exposition?

This clarifies that when an Manifested Buddha expounds the Dharma, he himself says: “From immeasurable asamkhya kalpas until now, I have extensively cultivated the myriad practices, and only now have I attained the fruit of Buddhahood, fully endowed with the marks, excellent characteristics, and all virtues.” He does not say: “I am a Transformation Buddha.” If he were to say of himself, “I am a Transformation Buddha,” sentient beings would immediately regard him as an illusory apparition, or as some kind of spirit or ghost.

They would then fail to give rise to reverence and faith and would not accept the teaching he expounds. Since their minds would not believe in or accept that teaching, they would gain no benefit. Because they do not believe him to be a Transformation Buddha, they gain many benefits.

This is called the expounder. This Manifested Buddha appears from the realm of truth, but is not called a transformation or manifestation; therefore, the merit gained by making offerings to and accepting and upholding his teaching is no different from that gained in relation to the True Buddha. Thus, the exposition of the Manifested Buddha is called right exposition.

The Treatise uses six verses to explain this passage of the scripture:

+ The first verse: It presents the analogy of minute particles, establishing the intent of the question and answer and explaining the doubt in the preceding scriptural passage:

(The world is reduced to minute particles;

That analogy reveals the meaning in question.

The minute particles are ground into powder,

Revealing that the afflictions are exhausted.)

+ The second verse: It clarifies that minute particles have no color, flavor, shape, or form and therefore are neither one nor different. The Buddhas are likewise: because their afflictions have been completely eliminated, they are neither one nor different:

(Not an aggregation, yet called an aggregation;

It is not merely an analogy of oneness.

The place of aggregation is not elsewhere;

Neither is it here—the analogy shows distinctions.)

+ The third verse: The first two lines clarify that ordinary beings do not understand that conditioned dharmas are empty and become attached according to names. The last two lines connect with the fourth verse:

(Merely following sounds,

Ordinary beings grasp in an inverted way.

It is not through two emptinesses that the path is attained,

But through abandoning self and dharmas.)

+ The fourth verse: Together with the final two lines of the third verse, this forms a verse and a half, generally explaining that Buddhas and bodhisattvas are not said to have attained the path merely because they have realized the supreme understanding of the emptiness of self and dharmas:

(To perceive a self is precisely not to see;

What is seen is false and unreal.

This is a subtle obstruction;

It is abandoned upon seeing true suchness.)

+ The fifth verse: The first two lines set forth two kinds of bodhisattvas whose wisdom is capable of clear understanding. The last two lines clarify that making offerings to a Transformation Buddha is no different from making offerings to the True Buddha:

(The two wisdoms, together with samadhi,

Are thus able to abandon it.

The transformation body manifests merit;

It is neither without merit nor exhaustible.)

+ The sixth verse: It clarifies that the Manifested Buddha’s exposition of the Dharma is right exposition:

(When the Buddhas expound the Dharma,

They do not say they are transformation bodies.

Because they do not speak in that way,

Their exposition is therefore correct.)

– The first verse states: “The world is reduced to minute particles,” and so forth. This explains the section of the scripture beginning with “good man or good woman” and continuing through “asamkhya worlds.” If discussed according to worldly convention, those minute particles are called a “world”; this does not mean a world such as a trichiliocosm. This clarifies that minute particles possessing color and flavor are broken down into minute particles without color or flavor. These minute particles, devoid of color, fragrance, flavor, and touch, also have no spatial location; therefore, they are called minute particles.

+ “That analogy reveals the meaning in question”: This clarifies that the preceding doubt concerning the meaning that, within that dharma realm, they are neither one nor different is explained by means of the analogy of minute particles. Therefore, it says: “reveals the meaning in question.”

+ “The minute particles are ground into powder”: This restates the preceding analogy. Grinding minute particles into particles without color or flavor is an analogy for the Buddhas, the Tathagatas, who, upon attaining the path, are forever free from the two obstructions. Therefore, the fourth line states: “Revealing that the afflictions are exhausted.”

+ What meaning does this clarify? This asks what meaning is explained by the intention of the analogy presented in this verse.

+ The verse says:

Within that dharma realm,

They are neither one nor different.

Here the author of the Treatise cites again the verse from the preceding part of the treatise, briefly answering the matter to which the analogy of minute particles is compared: Although those Buddhas and Tathagatas are many, within the dharma realm of true suchness they neither abide in a single place nor abide in different places. To reveal this meaning, the analogy of worlds being pulverized into minute particles is given. Having explained that the Buddhas neither abide in one place nor abide in different places, the analogy is then continued to establish the comparison.

+ What meaning does this analogy reveal? This asks: The analogy of minute particles compares the Buddhas within the dharma realm of true suchness, where they neither abide in one place nor abide in different places; yet it remains unclear what similarity this analogy possesses that enables it to serve as a comparison and illustration. The latter half of the verse answers:

The minute particles are ground into powder,

Revealing that the afflictions are exhausted.

This explains: If a world has not been pulverized, then distinctions between here and there exist. Once it has been pulverized into minute particles, the divisions between here and there no longer remain. This is an analogy for the Buddhas and Tathagatas: when the two obstructions have been completely eliminated, then within the dharma realm of true suchness there are no longer obstructions involving here and there, or one place and another place. Because this similarity exists, it is employed as a comparison.

+ This analogy does not refer to an aggregation constituting a number of minute particles: As the verse is about to explain the scripture, it first states what the scripture is clarifying.

+ The intent of the analogy concerning the number of minute particles: It does not mean that minute particles truly aggregate and are thereby called a great number or multitude.

+ It reveals that this is not an analogy of only one: It reveals that the Buddhas are exceedingly numerous; therefore, minute particles without color or flavor are provisionally spoken of as a multitude of minute particles.

– The second verse explains the section of the scripture beginning with “What do you think, Venerable One? Should that number of minute particles be considered great?” and continuing through “Therefore, the Buddha speaks of it as a single composite characteristic.”

+ “Not an aggregation”: Earlier, the scripture states that the multitude of minute particles is exceedingly great, making it seem as though minute particles truly exist. This clarifies that because minute particles without color or flavor are designated as minute particles, there is no real aggregation of minute particles that can be called an exceedingly great multitude of minute particles. Therefore, it says: “Not an aggregation.”

+ “Yet called an aggregation.” A doubt is raised: If there is no real aggregation of minute particles, why is it said that the multitude of minute particles is exceedingly great? The answer is that “aggregation” is provisionally established based on a name belonging to conventional truth. Aggregation is spoken of where there is no aggregation; it is not asserted that a real multitude of minute particles aggregates and is therefore exceedingly great. Hence the verse says: “Yet called an aggregation.”

+ “It is not merely an analogy of oneness”: If there truly is no aggregation of minute particles, why is it provisionally said to be exceedingly great? This clarifies that because the minute particles are many, they may be compared to the Buddhas of the ten directions, who are likewise exceedingly numerous and cannot be said to be one. Since minute particles lack inherent nature, one cannot definitively say that there is an aggregation of minute particles. This illustrates that when the Tathagata has completely eliminated the afflictions, his essence is unobstructed and cannot be said to abide in a single place. Therefore, the verse says: “It is not merely an analogy of oneness.”

+ “The place of aggregation is not elsewhere”: This clarifies that although the minute particles are many, because their essence is empty, no real minute particles can be found at the place of aggregation. Since even a single place is empty, they also do not come from another place, because no real minute particles can be found in another place. Therefore, the verse says: “The place of aggregation is not elsewhere.”

+ “Neither is it here—the analogy shows distinctions”: This explains that just as minute particles aggregated in one place are unobstructed and their characteristics cannot be apprehended, so too, if they were to come from another distinct place, their characteristics likewise could not be apprehended. The Buddhas are the same. Since the essence of the pure Dharma body is unobstructed, it cannot abide in a single place; nor can it be separated into distinctions of different places, such as the Buddha Akshobhya in the eastern direction, and so forth. Therefore, it says: “Neither is it here—the analogy shows distinctions.”

+ What does this mean? From “like atoms” through “things do not aggregate”: this explains the first half of the preceding verse. From “nor are they differentiated in other places” through “because they do not abide separately”: this explains the latter half of the verse.

Thus, the Buddhas, the Tathagatas, through “nor do they abide in different places”: this explains the meaning of the analogy in the preceding verse. This explanation accords with the meaning of the analogy.

+ Thus, the analogy of the composite characteristic of the trichiliocosm as not being an aggregation explains the preceding meaning that atoms are neither one nor different. Here, the meaning that the gross things of the world are neither one nor different is likewise distinguished; therefore it says: “Thus,” through “it is not an aggregation.”

+ Why is this so?: This asks why, after giving the analogy of the composite characteristic of the trichiliocosm, it is further said not to be an aggregation.

+ From “as the sutra states” onward: this cites the Tathagata’s statement of truth in reply. If there truly were a single aggregated thing, the Tathagata would not say that it is an aggregation of things. Above, the two analogies of the atoms and the world have already been explained and correlated; why, then, does this passage follow?

Although the preceding passage clarified that atoms and the world are false and unreal, neither aggregated in one place nor differentiated in other places, and used this as a comparison for the Buddhas, it had not yet explained why atoms and the world are empty. Now it formally explains the emptiness of these two dharmas, showing that if there truly existed a nonempty thing called an atom that aggregated, the Tathagata would not provisionally call that which is not an atom an “atom,” or call them an “aggregation.”

+ “If there truly were a world,” and so forth: this explains that the world is empty, no differently from atoms being empty.

+ From “as the sutra states” onward: this cites the sutra to conclude the explanation.

+ Yet ordinary people greedily cling to things: this passage does not occur in the preceding verse; why, then, is it presented separately? It is intended to clarify that ordinary people deludedly grasp the preceding objects, give rise to craving for what is false and provisional, take the unreal to be real, and confirm that the nature of the two preceding dharmas—atoms and the world—is not empty. Therefore, it is cited and explained.

+ From “as the sutra states” onward: this cites the preceding sutra passage as a whole to conclude the explanation.

– The third verse: The first two lines, “Merely following sounds, ordinary people grasp invertedly,” explain the passage in the sutra: “Yet ordinary people greedily cling to things.” They clarify that ordinary people do not understand things as they truly are, but merely engage in false discrimination and grasp according to words. Hearing it said that form can be seen and touched, they immediately suppose that its true meaning is likewise that it can be seen and touched. Therefore, the verse says: “Merely following sounds.”

+ Ordinary people grasp invertedly: Hearing it said that form and so forth can be seen and touched, ordinary people immediately suppose that form and so forth truly exist and can be seen and touched. Because they grasp the unreal as real, it says: “Ordinary people grasp invertedly.”

+ The path is not attained through the two emptinesses: From here onward, the latter two lines of the verse—“The path is not attained through the two emptinesses; one becomes free from self and dharmas”—together with the first three lines of the fourth verse jointly explain the sutra passage: “Why? Because if someone speaks in this way,” through “this is called a view of self.”

+ The path is not attained through the two emptinesses: This clarifies that the Buddhas, the Tathagatas, are not said to have attained the path merely because they have attained resolute understanding of the two emptinesses—the emptiness of self and the emptiness of dharmas. It also clarifies that although those of the Two Vehicles realize resolute understanding of these two emptinesses, their minds remain obscured by the habitual tendencies of delusions and their comprehension remains impeded by ignorance; therefore, they are not said to have attained the path.

One may then ask: If grasping these two emptinesses is not called attaining the path, what dharmas must one see and what practices must one cultivate to attain the path? Therefore, the fourth line of the verse says: “One becomes free from self and dharmas.” It explains: If one sees the profound and wondrous principle of ultimately equal suchness and clearly understands that self and dharmas have always been quiescent, while the two emptinesses—the absence of self and the absence of dharmas—are themselves falsely discriminated views, only then is one said to have attained the path.

It ought to say: “One becomes free from views of the absence of self and the absence of dharmas,” but because of the constraints of the verse, it says only: “One becomes free from self and dharmas.” That is, if one holds that self and dharmas exist and can be rendered empty, and further says, “I can attain resolute understanding of these two emptinesses,” then such a mind clinging to emptiness obstructs bodhi and suchness and is not called attainment of the path.

It also clarifies that bodhisattva-mahasattvas resolutely understand that the nature and characteristics of the dharmas producing the skandhas have always been quiescent; they do not become empty only through reliance on contemplation. Since there is no self or dharma that can be rendered empty, and no view of the two emptinesses that can be grasped, only then is it called attainment of the path.

From this third verse onward, the prose of the Treatise’s author explains the latter half of the verse but does not explain the first half. This is because the prose of the treatise above has already explained its meaning; therefore, it is not explained here.

+ “As the sutra states: Why?” and so forth: this cites the sutra passage explained by the latter two lines of the verse in order to conclude the meaning explained in the verse.

+ What further meaning does this have?: As the verse is about to be explained, this asks what meaning is clarified by the cited sutra passage such that the latter half of the verse is used to explain it. The verse then replies:

The path is not attained through the two emptinesses;

One becomes free from self and dharmas.

+ What does this mean?: This asks how the verse explains the meaning of the sutra. The explanation that follows makes this clear.

+ What further meaning does this have?: Although it has been said above that bodhi is attained by abandoning these two views—the absence of self and the absence of dharmas—one may ask: Should these two views not be regarded as correct understanding? For what reason must one abandon them? Therefore, the fourth verse is used in reply.

– The fourth verse: This explains and confirms the first half of the preceding verse. Although it was said above, “The path is not attained through the two emptinesses; one becomes free from self and dharmas,” the reason had not yet been explained and the meaning remained implicit. Therefore, this verse is composed, with its first three lines providing the explanation:

(Viewing a self is itself not seeing;

What is seen is false and unreal;

This is a subtle obstruction.)

+ Viewing a self is itself not seeing: This clarifies that to view a self as something that can be rendered empty and then to suppose, “I see the absence of self,” is not the profound understanding of ultimate right view. Therefore, it says: “Viewing a self is itself not seeing.” It should also say, “Viewing dharmas is itself not seeing,” but because of the constraints of the verse, it speaks only of viewing a self and not of viewing dharmas.

+ Why is viewing a self called not seeing? Therefore, the second line of the verse states: “What is seen is false and unreal.” If it is unreal, why is it seen as existing? This clarifies that it is seen due to falsehood and delusion; therefore, it says: “What is seen is false and unreal.” These first two lines explain the line in the preceding verse: “The path is not attained through the two emptinesses.”

+ This is a subtle obstruction: This clarifies that a mind clinging to existence is called a coarse delusion. A mind grasping the approach of emptiness is called a subtle delusion. This view that grasps the two emptinesses of self and dharmas is the essence of the delusion of ignorance, not the coarse delusions of the four abodes. Because it obstructs resolute understanding of suchness, it is called a subtle obstruction.

+ Seeing suchness, one becomes free: This single line explains the passage in the sutra: “A bodhisattva gives rise to the mind of bodhi and seeks to attain unsurpassed perfect awakening.” It clarifies that this subtle delusion is completely eliminated only when, upon attaining resolute understanding on the First Bhumi, one directly sees the ultimate and profound principle of suchness and eliminates that false discrimination. Therefore, it says: “Seeing suchness, one becomes free.” These two lines explain: “One becomes free from self and dharmas.” Thus, “a view is itself not seeing,” through “a view of dharmas is also not seeing,” explains the first half of the verse.

Therefore, attachment to views is itself not seeing: This explains the first line of the verse.

There is no true meaning, because of false discrimination: This explains the second line of the verse.

+ This is because of non-self: This is the concluding statement.

+ Therefore, the Tathagata says that such a view of self is itself not seeing: This cites the Buddha’s words as corroborating evidence. Because it is not real, and so forth, up to: The view of self is not seeing: This is the Treatise Master’s explanation of the Tathagata’s words.

+ Attachment to views concerning dharmas is also not seeing: These words do not occur in the verse, so they are stated separately to explain the parallel point.

+ As the sutra says: “A bodhisattva who has generated the aspiration for bodhi,” and so forth: This concludes the fourth line of the preceding verse, clarifying that a bodhisattva who has attained resolute understanding of true suchness no longer apprehends either non-self or the nonexistence of dharmas, and takes this as right view. It is also cited to show that the preceding apprehension of non-self and the nonexistence of dharmas is not right view.

+ What, again, is the meaning of this?: That is, why does this passage cite the sutra’s statement that the bodhisattva sees the characteristics of dharmas, in order to show that the preceding two attachments to views are called not seeing? The answer is: Because seeing the characteristics of dharmas is itself not seeing the characteristics. This clarifies that, by apprehending the attained state of not seeing the characteristics of dharmas, one thereby fails to see the characteristics of dharmas.

+ Just as that view of self is itself not seeing: Because one apprehends the view of non-self and regards it as right view, this too is not seeing.

+ Why are these two views called not seeing?: Since the next two lines of the verse are about to be explained, this question is raised to introduce them: These views of non-self and the nonexistence of dharmas ought to be correct understanding; why, then, are they said to be not seeing? The latter half of the verse answers:

These are subtle obstructions;

By seeing true suchness, one leaves them far behind.

+ How, again, is this so?: This asks: The verse regards those two views as subtle obstructions and says that seeing true suchness means leaving them far behind. How is this so? The explanation is that those views are the views of self and dharmas.

+ These are subtle obstructions: This concludes the discussion of the two views by designating them as obstructions.

+ Because those two are not seen: This explains the meaning of how they function as obstructions.

+ It is by seeing the Dharma that they are said to be left far behind: These two views do not impede the sravakas, but they are a danger to bodhisattvas. Therefore, only by seeing true suchness can they be left far behind.

+ Furthermore, “knowing thus,” and so forth: The preceding verse has already been cited and summarized, so why is it repeated here once more?

It is because the preceding verse only explained that those who believe and attain this knowledge and vision all leave behind the subtle obstructions of non-self and the nonexistence of dharmas, but it did not explain the meaning of believing, knowing, and seeing. A verse will now be composed to explain this, and therefore the passage is stated again.

– Verse 5:

The two wisdoms together with samadhi—

Thus are they left far behind.

These two lines explain the passage in the sutra: “A bodhisattva who has generated the aspiration for bodhi and seeks to attain unsurpassed, complete awakening should see, know, and believe thus.”

The reason this is clarified is that it was stated above: One who still apprehends the two forms of emptiness has subtle obstructions within the mind and therefore is not said to have attained the path. This clarifies that those who see true suchness all leave behind subtle obstructions and are said to have attained the path. Yet it has not been known which persons are able to see true suchness and leave behind subtle obstructions. It is now explained that those who transcend these two are bodhisattvas endowed with merit and wisdom, who see the profound principle of true suchness and can leave behind subtle obstructions. Therefore, this is clarified.

+ The two wisdoms: These are the worldly wisdom of those below the bhumis and the wisdom of ultimate truth possessed by those upon the bhumis.

Worldly wisdom explains the sutra’s phrase: “Know thus.” The wisdom of ultimate truth explains the sutra’s phrase: “See clearly thus.”

+ Together with samadhi: This refers to immeasurable samadhis such as the Stainless Samadhi and others, and explains the sutra’s phrase: “Believe thus.” Therefore, it is written: “The two wisdoms together with samadhi.”

+ Thus are they left far behind: This clarifies that persons endowed with both kinds of merit—wisdom and samadhi—attain the ultimate principle and can leave subtle obstructions far behind.

+ The transformation body manifests merit: In the preceding section of the sutra, someone gives rise to this doubt: Since a transformation Buddha does not cultivate the path, eliminate afflictions, attain bodhi, or preach the Dharma, and since he comes and goes, arises and ceases, he is not a true Buddha. Therefore, does making offerings to such a Buddha produce merit, or does it not? If merit is obtained, is it different from or no different from making offerings to the True Buddha?

What is the gravity of the offense of an evil-minded person who harms him? The verse therefore answers: “The transformation body manifests merit; it is not without inexhaustible merit.” This explains that although a transformation Buddha does not cultivate the path and realize its fruit, because the True Buddha is his basis, whenever sentient beings possess the appropriate responsiveness, the Noble One comes and appears in accordance with that responsiveness.

Because this Responsive Buddha comes from the realm of truth and shares the single, identical meaning with the other two Buddhas, and moreover does not say, “I am a transformation Buddha,” the merit gained by making offerings to the transformation Buddha is no different from that gained by making offerings to the True Buddha. He manifests the presence of merit; it is not that there is no inexhaustible merit. Because there is immeasurable and boundless merit, the sutra gives the example that, although giving the seven kinds of precious treasures produces great merit, it does not equal making offerings to a transformation Buddha.

Nor does it equal accepting and retaining the scriptural teaching expounded by the transformation Buddha, through which exceedingly great merit is obtained.

However, the sutra only explains that the merit obtained by accepting and retaining the scriptural teaching expounded by the transformation Buddha far surpasses the merit gained by giving the seven treasures. Therefore, it should be clearly understood that making offerings to a transformation Buddha also far surpasses the merit gained by giving the seven treasures.

These two lines explain the passage in the sutra from: “Suppose there is a bodhisattva who has generated the aspiration for bodhi,” up to: “Immeasurable asamkhyeyas.”

+ What is the meaning of this? “This indicates worldly wisdom,” up to: “Leaves that obstruction far behind”: This explains the first two lines of the verse.

+ Therefore, the analogy of surpassing merit is stated once more: This explains the latter two lines of the verse.

+ Therefore: Above, someone raised this doubt: Does making offerings to the Responsive Buddha and accepting and retaining the scriptural teaching expounded by the Responsive Buddha produce merit, or does it not? Therefore, the analogy of surpassing merit was cited to resolve that doubt.

+ “Why, when it is expounded for others, is it nevertheless not called preaching?” and so forth. Why is this said?: Since a verse is about to be composed to explain this passage of the sutra, this question is raised: In that passage of the sutra, if one expounds it for others, it should be called preaching. Why, then, is it not called preaching? Hence the question is raised: “Why is this said?”

– Verse 6: “When the Buddhas preach the Dharma,” and so forth: This explains the passage in the sutra: “Why, when it is expounded for others, is it nevertheless not called preaching?” A doubt arises from the sutra: Because a transformation Buddha is not real, the scriptural teaching he expounds must likewise not be a correct teaching. Because this doubt exists, the verse explains:

When the Buddhas preach the Dharma,

They do not say they are transformation Buddhas.

+ When they preach the Dharma: This is when sentient beings possess the appropriate responsiveness, are free from the eight difficulties, and receive the Dharma of the path. This clarifies that the Responsive Buddha comes to sentient beings in accordance with their responsiveness. Although the transformation body is not real, the verbal teaching it expounds when preaching the Dharma is nevertheless a correct teaching.

+ The reason this is so, up to: “They would not believe in the transformation body”: This clarifies that when the Buddha’s transformation body preaches the Dharma for sentient beings, he does not say, “I am a transformation Buddha.” If he said, “I am a transformation Buddha,” the sentient beings to be transformed might not give rise to a mind of reverence. If they neither revered nor believed, then although he taught and transformed them, there would be no benefit. Therefore, he does not say, “I am a transformation Buddha.” Because they do not believe him to be a transformation Buddha, sentient beings believe and accept the scriptural teaching he expounds, thereby gaining great benefit; hence, it is a correct teaching. Therefore, the latter half of the verse says:

Because they do not say this,

Therefore, their teaching is correct.

– Part 11: The verse states:

All conditioned dharmas

Are like stars, a film over the eyes, a lamp, an illusion,

Dew, bubbles, a dream, lightning, and clouds;

Thus should they be contemplated.

This verse constitutes the eleventh section of the sutra, called the Section on the Non-Abiding Path.

+ Why is this section of the sutra called the Non-Abiding Path? It clarifies that, through supramundane wondrous wisdom, all Buddhas and Tathagatas contemplate the nine kinds of conditioned phenomena as being precisely nirvana. They are unlike ordinary beings, who delight in and cling to the world. They are also unlike those of the Two Vehicles, who delight in abiding in nirvana. They abide in neither of these two paths. Therefore, it is called the Non-Abiding Path.

+ The reason this passage follows here is to resolve a doubt. In the preceding section of the sutra, the analogy of atoms was presented to explain that when Buddhas and Tathagatas attain perfect enlightenment, they completely eliminate the two obstacles and, within the true Dharma realm, abide neither in one place nor in a different place. This gives rise to a doubt: Are Buddhas and Tathagatas like those atoms, their essence being empty and thus entirely without bodies, or do they truly possess bodies?

If they possess bodies, their bodies should have a place in which to abide. Why, then, is it said that they abide neither in one place nor in a different place? If they have an abiding place, do they abide in the world or in nirvana?

If they abide in the world, why did the preceding section of the sutra say that the Tathagata enters nirvana? If they abide in nirvana, why is it also said that the Tathagata remains in the world, constantly teaching the Dharma for sentient beings?

To resolve this doubt, the nine analogies for conditioned phenomena are given in reply. They clarify that Buddhas and Tathagatas possess a true and wondrous body endowed with the ten powers, the four fearlessnesses, and immeasurable virtues. This body takes the Non-Abiding Path as its abiding place.

What is the Non-Abiding Path? It means abiding neither in the world nor in nirvana. This explains that Buddhas and Tathagatas fully understand that the nine kinds of conditioned phenomena are false in essence and have been quiescent from the beginning.

They awaken to the equality of true suchness and recognize that the true nature of the world is precisely nirvana. Having completely eradicated the causes of birth and death, they therefore do not abide in the world. They are unlike ordinary beings, who do not understand that the conditioned dharmas of the world have been quiescent from the beginning and consequently give rise to clinging conduct and abide in the world.

Having perceived the equality of true suchness and understood that the true nature of the world is precisely nirvana, they see that the world and nirvana are neither two nor different. Moreover, because they are fully endowed with compassion and great vows, they constantly remain within birth and death to teach and transform sentient beings. Therefore, they do not abide in nirvana.

They are unlike those of the Two Vehicles, who do not know that all sentient beings possess true suchness and Buddha-nature, equal and nondual. Thus, they regard nirvana as different from the world, become weary of and abandon the world, delight in personally realizing the Path in nirvana, and consequently abide in nirvana.

Buddhas and Tathagatas take this Non-Abiding Path as their abiding place; therefore, it is next elucidated.

All conditioned dharmas

Are like stars, a film over the eyes, a lamp, and an illusion.

This verse was spoken by the Tathagata and was not composed by the author of the treatise.

+ “All conditioned dharmas”: Since nine analogies are about to be presented to illustrate nine kinds of conditioned phenomena, all conditioned dharmas are first mentioned collectively.

+ “Like stars, a film over the eyes, and a lamp”: The treatise groups these three analogies in the verse together under the designation “seeing, characteristics, and consciousness.” The three middle analogies in the verse—an illusion, dew, and bubbles—are grouped together in the treatise under the designation “the world-container, the body, and objects of enjoyment.” The final three analogies—a dream, lightning, and clouds—are grouped together in the treatise under the designation “past, present, and future,” clarifying how the preceding six kinds of conditioned phenomena change throughout the three periods of time.

In the preceding analogy of atoms, the six objects of the senses were directly discussed to clarify that conditioned dharmas are empty in essence. Here, the nine analogies are presented from the standpoint of the subject that apprehends—the inner mind—to clarify that dharmas are empty in essence.

Question: If these nine analogies clarify the emptiness in essence of the inner mind, why do they also include the external world, the body, and so forth, which are morally indeterminate dharmas?

Answer: Although the explanation broadly addresses external dharmas such as form and so forth, its principal intention is to present objects in order to clarify the emptiness of mind.

– First: Like stars. This is an analogy for the inner subject that perceives—the mind. Stars are used as an analogy for the inner perceiving mind because ordinary beings and non-Buddhist practitioners generally regard the sun, moon, and stars as permanent and real, and likewise regard the inner mind as permanent and real. Therefore, their own attachment is taken as the basis for refuting it. It is explained that the sun, moon, and stars appear in succession, eclipsing one another, shifting and never remaining fixed; therefore, they are not real. Mental dharmas are likewise. As there is a slight similarity, they are compared to stars in the heavens: before the sun rises, the stars are clearly visible in the sky and perform the function of illuminating things. Once the sun appears, the light of the stars is entirely lost. Although the stars exist, they are no longer visible because the greater light overwhelms the lesser. The mental dharmas constituting the perceiving subject are likewise. Before the noble one’s supramundane, uncontaminated wisdom of realization and understanding arises, the deluded and discriminating mental dharmas appear to exist and therefore perform the function of apprehending objects. Once noble understanding arises, all deluded and discriminating mental dharmas are completely extinguished, because they are unreal. Through contemplation in this manner, one understands that the six consciousnesses constituting the perceiving subject have been quiescent from the beginning and are all dharmas of equality.

– Second: Like a film caused by an eye disease. This also illustrates the mind as the perceiving subject. How does the meaning of this second analogy differ from the preceding one? Some followers of the Lesser Vehicle maintain: How can it be known that the mind and mental dharmas are real? Because they can perceive the objects before them and apprehend the six sense objects, they are truly real. This is compared to a film over a diseased eye. Because followers of the Lesser Vehicle cling to what is obscured by a film—such as a city of gandharvas and other things that are false and unreal—they regard both the six consciousnesses, which constitute the perceiving subject, and the six sense objects, which are perceived, as real. Therefore, in accordance with their own resolute understanding, the Tathagata presents this analogy to refute their attachment. Just as a person with a film over the eyes falsely sees forms such as flowers in empty space and takes them to be real, so too is the mind when contemplating conditioned dharmas. Amid false conditioned dharmas such as form and so forth, it takes what is unreal to be real and, because the mind is inverted, clings to objects.

– Third: Like a lamp. This also illustrates the perceiving mind. How does this third analogy differ from the preceding two?

Explanation: Those of the Two Vehicles and non-Buddhist practitioners alike see and recognize that flowing water and a burning lamp shift continuously without remaining still. Therefore, this familiar understanding is taken as the basis for explanation, and a lamp is used as an analogy for inner consciousness. When people in the world light a lamp, they require pure oil, a wick, and a lamp vessel.

Only after these three things mutually depend upon one another can the lamp be lit and burn. The dharma of consciousness is likewise: it must depend upon the conjunction of a sense faculty and its object and upon afflictions such as craving and attachment before consciousness can arise and perform the function of apprehending objects. When wisdom of realization arises, that consciousness becomes entirely quiescent and no longer performs the function of apprehending objects, because its very essence is false and unreal.

Since the perceiving mind is unreal in this manner, what dharmas are there to abandon, and toward what dharmas is one to proceed?

– Fourth: Like an illusion. Just as an illusionist in the world conjures at will all kinds of things, such as the four divisions of an army, men, women, and so forth, and all appear freely yet are not real, so too is the world-container. Because sentient beings create innumerable differing kinds of good and evil karma, in accordance with the good and evil karma they have created, pure and impure realms and so forth are obtained, with myriad distinctions among them. These differences appear because of karma; they do not truly exist. It is as though one person were to use empty space as earth and regard earth as empty space, while another were to make water perform the function of fire and fire perform the function of water—how could one know which is real? For example, the Brahmin Bharadvaja used fire as food, slept in empty space, and so forth.

– Fifth: Like dew (露): Just as early-morning dew rests upon the tips of grass and vanishes when it sees the sun, so too are the skandhas of the body: once arisen, they immediately perish; thought after thought, they shift and recede, never abiding even temporarily. This is because their nature is illusory, impermanent, and unreal.

– Sixth: Like a bubble (泡): Just as raindrops falling from the sky strike the ground forcefully and immediately form clusters of bubbles, which foolish children take to be lapis lazuli, giving rise to craving and attachment in their minds, yet which dissolve in an instant and cannot endure for long, so too are the three kinds of feeling. From the conjunction of the three—faculty, object, and consciousness—there subsequently arise feelings such as suffering, pleasure, and so forth; they exist only provisionally and do not remain, vanishing more swiftly than foam upon water. The feelings of suffering and pleasure in the body and the world are likewise unreal. Thus, which dharmas should one relinquish, and toward which dharmas should one proceed?

– Seventh: Like a dream (夢): The six illusory conditioned dharmas mentioned above have already receded from their state of abiding. They are like a person who, while dreaming, experiences the five desires and sees innumerable forms and objects; upon awakening, they are immediately gone. One can only recollect and know them but cannot see them again. The past shifts and perishes, no differently from a dream that is gone upon awakening.

– Eighth: Like a flash of lightning (電): Just as a flash of lightning has scarcely appeared when, by its nature, it cannot long remain, so the six kinds of conditioned phenomena in the present turn swiftly, in the blink of an eye, and come to an end like a flash of lightning. Therefore, lightning is used as their analogy.

– Ninth: Like a cloud (雲): Just as in the pure and cloudless sky, through the inconceivable karma of sentient beings and with dragons as the underlying cause, clouds that had not yet appeared in the sky are made to appear and, once they have appeared, disperse and perish again, so too are the six kinds of conditioned phenomena when they are dharmas not yet arisen.

Because the fundamental seeds of the alaya-consciousness have existed since beginningless time and are perfumed by the abiding ground of ignorance, dharmas not yet manifest can be made manifest, and once manifest, they immediately perish. Because they are unreal, they are likened to clouds.

Clearly, these six kinds of conditioned dharmas continually change throughout the three periods of time. Deluded thought regards them as existent, yet their nature is unreal, no differently from the nine analogies. Thus, which dharmas should one relinquish, and toward which dharmas should one proceed?

+ One should contemplate in this manner: The nine kinds of conditioned phenomena are like the nine analogies. One contemplates them as abiding in unreality. Therefore, it is written: “All conditioned dharmas are like stars; one should contemplate them in this manner,” continuing through “like clouds,” all being stated in the same way.

Since those conditioned dharmas are thus unreal, they have always been quiescent. That which has always been quiescent is the one true suchness alone. The quiescence of true suchness is nirvana.

Therefore, all Buddha-Tathagatas clearly perceive that the world itself is nirvana. They differ from those of the Two Vehicles, who, weary of and abandoning samsara, delight in abiding in nirvana and relinquish the work of liberating sentient beings. The Buddhas clearly perceive that nirvana itself is the world; therefore, they also differ from ordinary beings, who dwell in samsara without weariness and do not seek the liberating fruit of supramundane nirvana.

– The Treatise states: “Again, there is a doubt,” and so forth. In this passage of prose in the Treatise, the author of the Treatise briefly formulates the intent of the answer to the doubt.

+ If all Buddha-Tathagatas constantly teach the Dharma for sentient beings, they should therefore abide in the world. Yet it is also said that the Tathagata enters nirvana, which would mean abiding in nirvana. Why, then, did the preceding section of the Treatise say: “They abide in no place, nor do they abide in another place”?

+ To eliminate this doubt, the Tathagata then spoke the verse of analogies. This is the brief answer to the doubt; therefore, the meaning of the nine analogies is introduced to continue the explanation.

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

+ The first verse formulates a question and answer to explain the doubt, clarifying the path of non-abiding:

Neither conditioned nor apart from it,

Is the nirvana of all Tathagatas.

The nine kinds of conditioned dharmas

Should be rightly contemplated with wondrous wisdom.

+ The second verse sets forth the objects contemplated—the nine kinds of conditioned phenomena:

Visible characteristics together with consciousness,

The vessel-world, the body, and matters of enjoyment;

Dharmas of the past and present,

And likewise, contemplate the future age.

+ The third verse again introduces the nine kinds of conditioned dharmas, answers the challenge, and clarifies what is attained through contemplation:

Contemplate characteristics together with enjoyment;

Contemplate matters of the three periods of time.

Amid conditioned dharmas,

One attains stainless mastery.

– The first verse: “Neither conditioned nor apart from it”: “Not conditioned” clarifies that the Buddhas attain eternally abiding nirvana, whose nature is a supramundane dharma, entirely severed from arising, ceasing, and activity and devoid of the characteristics of beginning and end; therefore, it is not conditioned. If it is not conditioned, it might be distinctly understood as another place, as not abiding within conditioned dharmas; hence it is called “not apart from them.” This clarifies that the true nature of the conditioned is itself nirvana. There is no nirvana apart from or outside the conditioned. Therefore, the second line states: “Is the nirvana of all Tathagatas.” This explains that when they realize Great Nirvana, they neither abide in conditioned dharmas nor depart from conditioned dharmas.

+ If they do not depart from the conditioned, then they abide in the world. If they are not conditioned, then they abide in nirvana. Why is it said that the Buddhas abide neither in nirvana nor in the world? Therefore, the latter half of the verse answers:

The nine kinds of conditioned dharmas

Should be rightly contemplated with wondrous wisdom.

This clarifies that the Buddha-Tathagatas attain supramundane right contemplation and clearly perceive that conditioned dharmas have always been quiescent and are themselves the nature of nirvana. They differ from sravakas, who perceive the world as distinct from nirvana and consequently reject the conditioned while grasping nirvana.

+ To say now that the conditioned is itself nirvana means the eternally abiding nirvana of the wondrous existence of Buddha-nature. This clarifies that the Buddha-Tathagatas contemplate conditioned dharmas as themselves the nirvana of pure nature. Having perceived the nirvana of pure nature and completely eradicated the two hindrances, when they realize the wondrous wisdom of right contemplation, they can thereby realize the expedient nirvana of that manifest fruit. Thus, they do not abandon the conditioned to abide in nirvana.

+ What is the meaning of this? “The nirvana of all Buddhas”: This cites the second line of the verse.

+ “It is not conditioned, nor is it apart from conditioned dharmas”: This explains the first line of the verse.

+ Why? Here, having first explained the nirvana of the Buddhas, it asks why it is not a conditioned dharma yet is said not to be apart from conditioned dharmas. It then explains: Because the Buddhas realize nirvana and transcend samsara, it is not conditioned. Through transformation bodies, they teach the Dharma and exert themselves to benefit sentient beings. This clarifies that, by means of their response bodies, the Buddhas constantly remain in the world to liberate the myriad beings and therefore do not depart from the conditioned.

+ This explains that the Buddhas do not abide in nirvana: This summarizes the first statement. “Because they do not abide in the world”: This summarizes the second statement.

+ Why do the Buddhas manifest activities in the world yet not abide in conditioned dharmas? Since the latter half of the verse is about to be explained, this question is asked: It was previously said that they manifest activities in the world. Why are the Buddhas’ response bodies, which liberate the myriad beings and manifest birth, aging, illness, and death, not said to abide in conditioned dharmas? Therefore, the final two lines of the verse answer:

The nine kinds of conditioned dharmas

Should be rightly contemplated with wondrous wisdom.

Although they share with the world the appearance of birth, aging, illness, and death, they are not conditioned dharmas.

+ What is the meaning of this? This asks: The verse explains right contemplation, but what dharmas are contemplated for it to be called right contemplation? Although they manifest worldly activities such as birth and death, they are not said to abide in conditioned dharmas. This explains the right contemplation of the nine kinds and their corresponding analogies, such as stars and so forth. It clarifies that the Buddhas contemplate the nine kinds of conditioned dharmas as illusory and unreal, just as they contemplate the nine things, such as stars and so forth, as likewise illusory and unreal. Therefore, while amid conditioned dharmas, through the wondrous power of right contemplation, they can manifest worldly activities throughout the entire day without abiding in conditioned dharmas.

+ These nine kinds of right contemplation correspond to nine kinds of objects; this should be understood. This sets forth the objects of right contemplation and exhorts people to understand them.

– The second verse, in its first line, says: “Seeing, signs”: This directly indicates the mind that sees signs, encompassing the perceiving subject in all three aspects. However, to form the verse, it says: “Together with consciousness.” (“Seeing and signs, together with consciousness.”) This line contains three things, clarifying that the perceiving subject is mind, and explaining the three analogies in the sutra: stars, a cataract, and a lamp.

+ Vessels, the body, and objects of enjoyment: These three clarify what is experienced and enjoyed, explaining the three analogies in the sutra: an illusion, dew, and a bubble.

+ The verse says: “Dharmas of the past and present, / And also contemplate the future.” This clarifies that the preceding six kinds of conditioned dharmas undergo transformation throughout the three times, explaining the three analogies of a dream, lightning, and clouds. This means that when those six kinds of conditioned dharmas have receded into what has gone by, they are called the past. When the seeds of those six kinds of conditioned dharmas have not yet arisen, they are called the future. When those six kinds of conditioned dharmas are presently arising, being born and ceasing from moment to moment, they are called the present. Therefore, this is called transformation throughout the three times.

– The third verse states: “Contemplate signs together with enjoyment.” “Contemplate signs” reiterates the seeing, signs, and consciousness mentioned above in the preceding verse. “Together with enjoyment” reiterates the three things—vessels, the body, and objects of enjoyment—in the preceding verse.

+ “Contemplate phenomena in the three times”: This reiterates the past, present, and future mentioned later in the preceding verse.

+ The reason these nine kinds of dharmas are cited once again is that a question may be raised: What merits are attained by contemplating these nine kinds of conditioned dharmas? What wisdom is accomplished? Therefore, the latter half of the verse answers: “Within conditioned dharmas, / One attains stainless mastery.” This clarifies that when contemplating these nine kinds of conditioned dharmas, one can attain the undefiled, stainless fruit of the First Bhumi and above, the wisdom of non-arising and decisive understanding on the path of non-abiding, and the merit of mastery.

– Section 12: From “After the Buddha had finished teaching this sutra” through “believed, accepted, and respectfully practiced it”: This is the twelfth section of the sutra, called the Dissemination Section.

+ The reason dissemination is clarified next is that the preceding portion was the teaching of the Dharma, formally discerning the essential substance of the sutra, through which many gained faith and awakening. It will now clarify that when the Tathagata teaches the Dharma, he aims not only to bring direct and universal benefit to the people of that time, but also to bestow beneficent aid throughout many distant kalpas, enabling it to circulate in the future so that beings in later ages may likewise be imbued with the true Dharma.

Therefore, this work is clarified next. Since all four assemblies, the eight classes of beings, and the great bodhisattvas are fully enumerated here, it should be understood that the Introductory Section, when recounting the great assembly gathered to hear the sutra, must likewise have included them all. Because the sutra text is concise, they were omitted from the Introductory Section.

+ “Having heard the Buddha’s teaching”: At that time, the entire assembly was exceedingly joyful, believed and accepted this sutra, respectfully practiced it, and disseminated it for three reasons:

1. The teacher was pure: This clarifies that all Buddhas, the Tathagatas, possess omniscience; have completely eliminated the two obstructions; and are fully endowed with immeasurable merits such as the ten powers, the four fearlessnesses, and the eighteen distinctive qualities. They teach in accordance with what they have realized, and what they teach necessarily accords with principle. Therefore, it is said: “The teacher was pure.”

2. That which was taught was pure: This clarifies that the sounds, chapters, phrases, and Agama scriptural teachings that were expounded were all revealed by one who was free from afflictions. The teaching accords with that of all Buddhas, being neither too much nor too little, neither increased nor diminished, and corresponding with principle. Therefore, that which was taught is said to be pure.

3. The recipients were pure: This means that the entire assembly at that Dharma gathering listened single-mindedly and attentively. They did not seek faults or engage in disputes; they did not say that their own Dharma was right and another’s was wrong; and their minds were neither doubtful nor turbid. Therefore, they are called pure.

The entire great assembly joyfully gazed upon the Honored One among devas. They had obtained the flavor of the profound and wondrous Dharma, dispelled doubts, severed obstructions, attained the path, and crossed beyond the world. Therefore, they rejoiced greatly, believed and accepted the teaching, and respectfully practiced it.

– The final verse:

The rare, all-retaining Dharma of all Buddhas,

Its phrases and profound meanings cannot be fathomed;

Heard from the Venerable One and extensively explained,

I transfer this merit and bestow it upon all beings.

This single verse is the eightieth verse composed by the author of the treatise as praise and dedication of merit.

+ “All Buddhas”: This refers to all Buddhas of the ten directions throughout the three times. It clarifies that this Vajracchedika Prajnaparamita Sutra is the Mother of Wisdom of all Buddhas of the ten directions throughout the three times. All Buddhas of the three times teach this Dharma; it was not taught solely by Tathagata Shakyamuni. Therefore, it says: “All Buddhas.”

+ “Rare”: This does not mean that it has been absent for many ages; rather, it appears only at certain times and is therefore called rare. Furthermore, since all Buddhas and Tathagatas constantly teach beings, why is it called rare? This clarifies that the principle of this prajna is profound and its meaning far-reaching. It is solely the domain of the Buddhas and is not something others can know. Ordinary beings and those of the Two Vehicles, whose practice and faculties are limited, cannot accept it. Because those who believe in it are difficult to find, it is called rare.

+ “All-retaining Dharma”: This clarifies that although the text of this sutra is concise, its meaning is lucid and extensive, and its intent is profound. It clearly reveals the principles of cause and effect, objects and wisdom, and permanence, encompassing and fully disclosing them all. Therefore, it is called an all-retaining Dharma. There is also another meaning: Although the texts of all Mahayana sutras are extensive, what they ultimately elucidate does not go beyond beings, bodhisattvas, Buddhas, and Pure Lands. Although this sutra is concise, its ultimate exposition also fully includes these four categories. Therefore, it is called an all-retaining Dharma.

+ “Cannot be fathomed”: This clarifies that the principle of this sutra is profound and is not something that those of the Two Vehicles, with their limited wisdom, can measure or examine.

+ “Its phrases and profound meanings”: This means that the wording and sequential arrangement of this sutra all bear profound meaning.

This gives rise to a question: If the phrases, meanings, and sequence of this Vajracchedika Prajnaparamita Sutra are difficult to comprehend and do not belong to a domain that can be fathomed, how was the author of the treatise able to understand them and compose a treatise explaining them? Therefore, the verse says: “Heard from the Venerable One.” This clarifies the author’s own statement: His explanation of the meaning of this profound Dharma gateway of Vajracchedika Prajnaparamita was not accomplished through the power of his own wisdom.

Rather, he heard it by attending upon the Venerable One, whose Sanskrit name is Asanga and whose name was translated into Chinese as Bhikshu Without Obstruction. Tracing it further back, he received it from the World-Honored Maitreya. This clarifies that, upon respectfully examining the merits of the present work, they are not based upon erroneous transmission.

Therefore, it says: “Heard from the Venerable One.”

+ “And extensively explained”: This clarifies that Bhikshu Without Obstruction was a bodhisattva on the stage of spiritual potential, widely learned and possessing excellent memory, capable of disseminating the Mahayana Dharma and subduing non-Buddhist teachers. Therefore, out of compassion for the people of this Jambudvipa, the World-Honored Maitreya composed the “Explanation of the Meaning of the Vajracchedika Prajnaparamita Sutra” and the Treatise on the Stages, and entrusted them to Bhikshu Without Obstruction so that they might be disseminated.

However, the World-Honored Maitreya explained them only in prose. The author of the treatise, Vasubandhu, studied them under Bhikshu Without Obstruction and further investigated the intent of this treatise on the sutra. He composed verses for the treatise, extensively raised questions in order to explain the sutra, producing eighty verses in all, and also wrote a prose section explaining the treatise.

He then transmitted this treatise to the Treatise Master Vajrasena and others. Vajrasena transmitted it to Akshayamati. Akshayamati, in turn, transmitted it to Shengji.

Shengji transmitted it to Bodhiruci. Thus, it was transmitted successively from one to another. For nearly two hundred years up to the present day, this transmission has never been interrupted.

Therefore, it says: “And extensively explained.”

+ “I transfer this merit and bestow it upon all beings”: Great bodhisattvas always make vows in response to the circumstances that arise. Therefore, the author of the treatise did not reserve solely for himself the merits produced by composing and transmitting the treatise, but transferred and bestowed them upon all beings throughout the Dharma realm, so that all might advance toward the mind of unsurpassed bodhi.

END OF FASCICLE 10