by Red Pine
Textual note: Neither Kumarajiva, Bodhiruci, Paramartha, Dharmagupta, nor Yi-ching includes abhisanbuddha (realized), while Hsuan-tsang has suo-cheng, suo-shuo, suo-ssu-wei (realized, taught, and comprehended).
And why? Because sages arise from what is uncreated.”
This is Subhuti’s answer, not the Buddha’s. Subhuti is among the wisest of the Buddha’s disciples, but his wisdom falls short here. What Subhuti says is true of Hinayana “sages,” such as those mentioned in Chapter Nine, but it is not true of buddhas. Buddhas do not arise from the uncreated. Later, after Subhuti has grasped this teaching, he tells Shakra, “A bodhisattva does not stand on the conception that the fruits of the holy life derive from the uncreated.” And when Shariputra responds, “The Tathagata stands neither on what is created nor on what is uncreated, nor does he arise therefrom,” Subhuti adds, “Even so should a bodhisattva stand and walk.” (Perfection of Wisdom in Eight Thousand Lines: 2) Thus, it should be kept in mind that this sutra represents the education of Subhuti in the perfection of wisdom. He does not yet understand this teaching, nor does he understand the nature of enlightenment. But if, as Shariputra says later, buddhas arise neither from what is created nor from what is uncreated, from what then do they arise? The Buddha answers this question at the end of the next chapter.
The term arya-pudgala (sages) literally means “noble persons” and refers to those who reach the highest level of spiritual attainment. Some commentators think Subhuti is referring to buddhas here. Others think he is referring to the four stages of the Hinayana path mentioned later in Chapter Nine. I suspect he was referring to both: buddhas as well as his fellow travelers on the shravaka path. If so, such usage, I suggest, betrays his confusion about the nature of enlightenment.
The word Subhuti uses here is asanskrita. In the Vedas, it usually means “unconsecrated,” in contrast to sanskrita, which means “consecrated,” as in “consecrated by the gods.” One of the Buddha’s contributions to the world was to give us a religion that did not depend on the gods. It was not centered on the Laws of Manu but the Law of Karma. Thus, early Buddhists applied the term asanskrita to those dharmas that are self-existent and not subject to creation or destruction. They applied this term to nirvana, to space, and to a buddha’s dharma body. Subhuti reflects this understanding, as he finds no difficulty in associating enlightenment with such uncreated dharmas. But he has not yet grasped the emptiness of emptiness, which is why the sutra does not end here. Nor does the Buddha praise him, as he does later in the sutra, but encourages him, in the next chapter, to look beyond “the uncreated.”
Seng-chao says, “Although the uncreated is one, understanding is clear or confused. Thus, superior and inferior are distinguished.”
T’ung-li says, “By ‘sages’ is meant the buddhas and bodhisattvas of the past, the future, and the present throughout the ten directions.”
Hung-lien says, “Who has not yet understood that the individual is empty and that dharmas are empty is said to be attached. Who understands these two truths understands the uncreated. Bodhisattvas realize the emptiness of both, while shravakas understand that the individual is empty but do not understand that dharmas are empty.”
Yen Ping says, “The dharmas taught by the Tathagata are like water. Whether they are hot or cold is something you yourself know but cannot grasp and cannot express to others.”
Chi-fo says, “Although ‘nirvana,’ ‘tathagata,’ and ‘the diamond prajna-paramita’ are different names, they are all uncreated dharmas. Created dharmas are the dharmas of the world. Uncreated dharmas are the dharmas that transcend the world. Often, people who cultivate think that uncreated dharmas refer to emptiness or stillness, and they turn their minds and bodies into ashes and deadwood and think they are practicing Buddhism. But all they are doing is trying to catch the wind or kick a shadow. They are lost and deluded people.”
Hui-neng says, “The uncreated dharmas taught by the Buddha are indeterminate. Because they are indeterminate, they are undifferentiated. Because they are undifferentiated, they are beginningless. Because they are beginningless, they are indestructible. They are completely empty and still. They illuminate everything, reflect without obstruction, and are the true buddha-nature of liberation.”
Chiang Wei-nung says, “There is no other way to become a wise person, to become a sage, or to become a tathagata than by means of this dharma door.”
Hai-chueh says, “The same piece of metal can be used to make ten thousand different utensils. It all depends on the knowledge of the craftsman.”
Tao-ch’uan says, “The difference of a single hair, and Heaven and Earth are divided. My song goes, ‘True people teach false dharmas / false dharmas all are true / false people teach true dharmas / true dharmas all are false / north of the river grow oranges, south of the river it’s tangerines / in spring their flowers look the same.’”
Textual note: Kumarajiva and Hsuan-tsang translate arya-pudgala (sages) as hsien sheng (worthies and sages). For prabhavita (arise from), Kumarajiva has yu ch’a-pieh (are distinguished by), and Bodhiruci has yi . . . te ming (are known by), while the other Chinese translators have suo hsien hsien / ming (are revealed by), with which the Tibetan also agrees. Conze has “are exalted by.” The word, as Conze notes, is an unusual one with many derivative meanings. For asanskrita (uncreated), Paramartha has wu-wei chen-ju (uncreated suchness), while Kumarajiva, Bodhiruci, and Dharmagupta have wu-wei fa (uncreated dharmas).
Chapter Eight: The Buddha said, “Subhuti, what do you think? If some noble son or daughter filled the billion worlds of this universe with the seven jewels and gave them as a gift to the tathagatas, the arhans, the fully-enlightened ones, would the body of merit produced as a result by this noble son or daughter be great?”
Subhuti answered, “Great, indeed, Bhagavan. The body of merit produced as a result by that noble son or daughter would be great, Sugata. And how so? Bhagavan, whatever is said by the Tathagata to be a body of merit is said by the Tathagata to be no body. Thus does the Tathagata speak of a body of merit as a ‘body of merit.’”
The Buddha said, “Subhuti, if instead of filling the billion worlds of this universe with the seven jewels and giving them as a gift to the tathagatas, the arhans, the fully-enlightened ones, this noble son or daughter grasped but one four-line gatha of this dharma teaching and made it known and explained it in detail to others, the body of merit produced as a result would be immeasurably, infinitely greater. And how so? Subhuti, from this is born the unexcelled, perfect enlightenment of tathagatas, arhans, and fully-enlightened ones. From this are born buddhas and bhagavans. And how so? Buddha dharmas, Subhuti, ‘buddha dharmas’ are spoken of by the Tathagata as no buddha dharmas. Thus are they called ‘buddha dharmas.’”
CHAPTER EIGHT
IN THE LAST CHAPTER, Subhuti penetrated the emptiness of the Buddha’s realization and teaching of enlightenment, and he traced buddhas back to the uncreated, which is the Hinayana view of a buddha’s dharma body. The Buddha now brings the fully-enlightened ones back from space. The Buddha does not deny that his own realization and teaching of enlightenment have no self-nature and are not, in themselves, real. But without dharmas of some kind our progress on the path to liberation becomes impossible. In fact, liberation loses its meaning. Hence, the Buddha refuses to let Subhuti cling to the raft of emptiness and turns his disciple’s attention from the uncreated back to this teaching, which is the Buddha’s true (dharma) body and the source of his realization (reward body) and teaching (apparition body). Thus, while neither the realization nor the teaching of enlightenment is ultimately real, yet by such means are beings liberated.
As in Chapter Four, the Buddha once again focuses on our punya-skandha, or body of merit. This body is the projection of our selfless thoughts, words, and deeds by means of which we take part in the liberation of all beings. But if such thoughts, words, and deeds are limited, our body of merit will necessarily be limited. The Buddha wants us to trade this limited body of me
rit for the unlimited body produced and obtained from this teaching, which is neither created nor uncreated, neither a dharma nor no dharma, but the source of all buddha dharmas.
Chao-ming titles this: “Arising from the Dharma.” Hui-neng says, “If we realize nothing and teach nothing, might we not vanish into emptiness? All buddhas, however, appear from this sutra. Thus follows a chapter on arising from the Dharma.”
The Buddha said, “Subhuti, what do you think? If
some noble son or daughter filled the billion worlds
of this universe with the seven jewels and gave them
as a gift to the tathagatas, the arhans, the fullyenlightened
ones, would the body of merit produced
as a result by this noble son or daughter be great?”
Different sutras give different lists of the sapta-ratna (seven jewels). Most begin with gold, silver, aquamarine (lapis lazuli was a later substitute for this blue beryl), carnelian (red agate), and nacre (the lining of the giant clam) but vary as to which two of the following should complete the list: crystal, rubies, pearls, coral, or black mica.
Such offerings pre-date the origin of Buddhism and were considered efficacious in assuring the good fortune of donors or those in whose names they were given—hence the choice of the number “seven,” which continues to be associated with good luck in cultures throughout the world. Seven is also the number of stars of the Big Dipper, whose four seasonal positions around the pivot of the sky form the ancient sauvastika (with crampons pointed counterclockwise to distinguish it from the svastika). Also, while the use of these precious substances not only formed an important part of devotional practice in India, once Buddhism established itself in China they became an essential part of the material culture of Chinese Buddhism as well. In fact, the gemstones in this list and their colored-glass substitutes constituted the major portion of India’s exports to the China, where they were exchanged for silk and medicinal herbs. (cf. Xinru Liu, Ancient India and Ancient China: Trade and Religious Exchanges, A.D. 1-600, Oxford: 1988.) Offerings of the seven jewels also appear in Chapters Eleven, Nineteen, Twenty-eight, and Thirty-two.
According to Buddhist cosmology, at the center of every world is a mountain called Mount Sumeru whose slopes and summit are home to the Thirty-three Heavenly Kingdoms and which is ringed by a series of seven fragrant seas and seven golden mountain ranges. Beyond the last of these ranges is a salt sea that contains the continents of Jambudvipa to the south, Purvavideha to the east, Godana to the west, and Uttarakuru to the north. And beyond these four continents and enclosing the whole world is an iron mountain range, around which move a sun and a moon. A thousand such worlds are said to make up a world system, a thousand world systems a galaxy, and a thousand galaxies a universe, which thus contains a billion worlds. Hence, the Buddha uses the most valuable objects of ancient India and the greatest imaginable unit of size. However, even a universe is subject to destruction. And even the seven jewels cannot buy liberation.
Hui-neng says, “Making offerings results in external merit. Reciting sutras results in internal merit. External merit includes food and clothing, while internal merit includes wisdom. Although people possess food and clothes, if they are deluded, then during the course of their previous lives they made offerings but did not recite sutras. And if in this life they are intelligent or wise but are impoverished and short of food and clothing, then in the course of their previous lives they recited sutras and listened to the Dharma but did not make offerings. Money and wealth are treasures of the world. Prajna is the jewel of the mind. Only if people practice both internal and external cultivation will their merit be complete.”
Chiang Wei-nung says, “The Buddha is concerned that we will misunderstand his previous teaching of practicing charity without being attached to appearances and think there is no need for charity or the resulting merit. Hence, he tells us that while we should practice without attachment we should not neglect charity. For compassion forms the foundation of wisdom.”
Textual note: In place of the first occurrence of kula-putra va kula-duhita va (noble son or daughter), Kumarajiva and Paramartha have jen (person), while Bodhiruci has nothing. For the second occurrence, Kumarajiva again has jen (person), while Yi-ching has nothing. Both here and elsewhere in this chapter, Kumarajiva, Bodhiruci, Paramartha, Hsuan-tsang, and Yi-ching all fail to mention the recipient of such an offering. Finally, Kumarajiva, Bodhiruci, and Yi-ching have te (acquire) for prasunuyat (produce). As for punya-skandha, Kumarajiva, Bodhiruci, Paramartha, and Yi-ching have nothing for skandha, while Dharmagupta and Hsuan-tsang render it as fu-chu (collection of merit).
Subhuti answered, “Great, indeed, Bhagavan.
The body of merit produced as a result by that
noble son or daughter would be great, Sugata.
Subhuti addresses the Buddha here as Sugata, which is among the titles of every buddha. Sugata means “well-gone” and recalls the concluding mantra of the Heart Sutra: gate, gate, paragate, parasangate (gone, gone, gone beyond, gone completely beyond). Although the Buddha has gone beyond, Subhuti has not. He remains attached to emptiness as the ultimate definition of reality. Still, he has learned something since this sutra began. He no longer simply denies the reality of whatever dharma the Buddha asks him to consider but allows its existence on the basis of its essential emptiness.
Meng-ts’an says, “This sort of talk accords with the way of the world. The Tathagata could not talk about realizing unexcelled, perfect enlightenment, how much less can he now talk about merit. But people are always thinking about merit, hence he uses it as a comparison, the usefulness of which Subhuti acknowledges.”
Textual note: For this section, Kumarajiva and Yi-ching have simply shen-to (great, indeed). Again, Bodhiruci and Paramartha have te (acquire) in place of prasunuyat (produce).
And how so? Bhagavan, whatever is said by the
Tathagata to be a body of merit is said by the
Tathagata to be no body. Thus does the Tathagata
speak of a body of merit as a ‘body of merit.’”
Subhuti uses the form of dialectical argument introduced by the Buddha in Chapter Five. This technique of affirming the reality of something by first stripping it of any self-nature became the hall-mark of the Madhyamaka philosophers, such as Nagarjuna. Essentially, it is the logical equivalent of the concept of shunyata (emptiness), concerning which Subhuti was supposedly so knowledgeable. The advantage of using the dialectic rather than the concept is that every concept, even the concept of emptiness, is likely to become another delusion and an obstacle to enlightenment, whereas the dialectic tends to remind those who use it of the futility of attachment to anything, including the result of its own application.
Ch’en Hsiung says, “Things are limited, and so is merit. The Fifth Patriarch said, ‘If you are blind to your own nature, merit won’t save you.’ And the Sixth Patriarch said, ‘Merit comes from your own nature, not from making offerings.’”
Li Wen-hui says, “Offering all the seven precious things in a billion worlds is practicing charity while still attached to form. Although the merit you acquire is great, it does not help you recognize your own mind or to see your own nature.”
Textual note: Differing from all other translators, Kumarajiva has shih fu-te chi fei-fu fu-hsing, shih-ku ju-lai shuo fu-te to (because such merit no longer possesses any merit-nature, thus the Tathagata says such merit is great). Here, unlike in the first section of this chapter, Bodhiruci, Paramartha, and Yi-ching have no choice but to translate the term skandha (body), which they do with chu (collection), as do Dharmagupta and Hsuan-tsang. Neither Bodhiruci, Paramartha, nor Yi-ching includes either occurrence of tathagatena bhashitah (is said by the Tathagata to be), while Dharmagupta does not include the first occurrence. Also, neither Paramartha nor Kumarajiva includes the final punya-skandha iti (‘body of merit’).
The Buddha said, “Subhuti, if, instead of filling the
billion worlds of this universe wi
th the seven jewels
and giving them as a gift to the tathagatas, the arhans,
the fully-enlightened ones, this noble son or daughter
grasped but one four-line gatha of this dharma
teaching and made it known and explained it in detail
to others, the body of merit produced as a result
would be immeasurably, infinitely greater.
The gatha was developed in India long before the rise of Buddhism, but it was Buddhism that introduced this poetic form to China, where it encouraged the development of the four-line chueh-chu, which formed the basis of Japanese haiku. The composition of these four-line poems in China, Korea, and Japan became a favorite method among Zen masters to test their disciples, and “graduation” gathas were used to define each generation’s particular style. Meanwhile, in India the gatha was used both as a stand-alone poem and to summarize prose sections of sacred and secular texts. The term was also used to refer to the shortest metrical unit of ancient Indian literature, and a number of commentators suggest its mention here does not refer to a particular verse but simply to any unit of four lines.
