by Red Pine
The Buddha said, “Subhuti, if any bodhisattva should
thus claim, ‘I shall bring about the transformation
of a world,’ such a claim would be untrue. And how so?
The transformation of a world, Subhuti, the ‘transformation
of a world’ is said by the Tathagata to be no
transformation. Thus is it called the ‘transformation
of a world.’
When bodhisattvas realize the forbearance of birthlessness, the worlds in which they stand and walk are forever altered as a result of their attainment. Thus did Shakyamuni illuminate this realm within which we hear and practice the Dharma, while Amita did the same for the buddha realm to the west, and Akshobya did so for the realm to the east. As bodhisattvas and buddhas create realms suited to the beings they have vowed to liberate, they also manifest works aimed at saving those beings. Such works, however, do not necessarily transform the material environment but rather affect the spiritual environment of the realms in which they liberate beings. Still, since nothing arises, nothing can be transformed. Thus, the transformation of a world is no transformation. And thus bodhisattvas are not attached to their transformation of a world.
The Sanskrit here is kshetra-vyuha (transformation of a world). While Chinese translators render vyuha as chuang-yen (adornment) or ch’ing-ching (purification), the emphasis here is not on the superficial beautification or glorification of a conjured paradise, nor on the elimination of impurity from this world we perceive with our senses, but on its transformation. The usual meaning of the word vyuha is “manifestation” or “arrangement.” But what is manifested or arranged is a world transformed by the realization of enlightenment and the teaching of enlightenment. Thus, bodhisattvas create worlds out of their bodies of merit, as Purusha does below.
Tsung-mi says, “What adorns? The ten thousand practices of the Six Paramitas, charity, precepts, meditation, and wisdom—all good dharmas adorn.”
Asanga says, “Because it is perceived through habits of awareness, a world cannot be grasped. Formlessness is peerless, and the untransformed is thus transformed.” (20) Vasubandhu comments, “There are two kinds of transformation: one of material appearances and one of true appearances. The latter is what is absolutely real. But because it lacks material form, the transformation of a buddha realm is no transformation.”
Hui-neng says, “The pure land of a buddha has no image and no form. What can adorn it? Only the jewels of meditation and wisdom can serve as adornments.”
Yin-shun says, “There are two tasks a bodhisattva accomplishes who attains the forbearance of birthlessness. One is the transformation of a buddha realm. The other is the perfection of other beings. The first is based on the power of resolution. Some people think that if a person becomes a buddha, the world is purified. This is a great misunderstanding. Buddhas and the beings they teach together complete the perfection and transformation of a world.”
In the Vimalakirti Sutra, the Buddha says, “Who would purify their world first purifies their mind. As their mind becomes pure, their world becomes pure.” (1)
Tsung-mi says: “How do we purify the mind? Externally, we remain uncontaminated by the six sensations, internally we remain free of self and being as well as unattached to nirvana. This is called purification.”
Wang Jih-hsiu says, “In every world system, there is a buddha who establishes the teaching. Shakyamuni established the teaching in this world. In the world to the east, Akshobya Buddha established the teaching. Thus, every world system is also called a buddha realm. Bodhisattvas transform the buddha realm in which they live by performing various acts of kindness in order to transform that world. When Amita Buddha was a bodhisattva, he performed countless acts of kindness and as a result of such good karma was able to transform his world into one whose ground was made of gold [note: the sutras say aquamarine] and whose trees and towers and pavilions were made of the seven jewels. This is to transform. But to say that a bodhisattva transforms or purifies a buddha land is not exactly the truth. For to transform a buddha land is not to transform it. This is what is meant by transforming it.”
Ch’en Hsiung says, “Palaces made of jewels and halls of every color are all external decorations. This is what ordinary people call adornment. They are not what bodhisattvas call adornment. If you want to know what a bodhisattva calls adornment, look inside at what is not adorned. The bodhisattva’s adornment does not consist in external adornment. On the contrary, it is sought in the mind. If the mind is pure, what adornment could be greater?”
Thich Nhat Hahn says, “Upon attaining enlightenment, all buddhas and bodhisattvas open a new world for people on the path of realization who want to study and practice with them. After a period of practice, if you have some attainment and peace, you may wish to share them with others and establish a small practice community. But this should always be done in the spirit of formlessness. Do not be bound by the practice center you establish.”
Textual note: While all editions have the Buddha asking a rhetorical question that he answers himself, Kumarajiva attributes the response to Subhuti and condenses sa vitathan vadet (such a claim would be untrue) into pu yeh shih-ts’un (no, Bhagavan). In the Buddha’s initial question and the final sentence, Paramartha has chuang-yen ch’ing-ching (adorn and purify). Hsuan-tsang has wo tang ch’eng-pan fo-t’u kung-te chuang-yen (I shall create a buddha-world and adorn it with virtue), while Yi-ching has wo tang ch’eng-chiu chuang-yen kuo-t’u (I shall perfect and adorn a world). Kumarajiva does not include kshetra (world) in the last sentence.
Therefore, Subhuti, fearless bodhisattvas should
thus give birth to a thought that is not attached
and not give birth to a thought attached to
anything. They should not give birth to a thought
attached to a sight. Nor should they give birth to
a thought attached to a sound, a smell, a taste,
a touch, or a dharma.
Buddhas and bodhisattvas transform a world in order to liberate the beings who live in that world. Thus, the Buddha returns to the teaching that began this sutra, giving birth to the thought of liberating all beings. Although such a thought is not immune to attachment, only such a thought is capable of no attachment. For only such a thought confronts the illusions of space and time with enough force to break through them. Here, however, liberation is preceded by transformation—but transformation that is no transformation. For what is there to be transformed? Thus, the mind transforms without transforming.
Li Wen-hui says, “Our mind originally does not dwell anywhere. But because it comes into contact with various realms, the mind gives birth to thoughts, unaware that such contact and such realms are empty. It considers the things of the world as real and focuses on these realms. It is like a monkey trying to grab the moon or like eyes with cataracts that see flowers. All things are produced by the mind. To realize one’s true nature is not to be attached to anything. The mind not attached to anything is prajna.”
According to the Perfection of Wisdom in Eight Thousand Lines, “The Tathagata is not attached to anything, because his mind does not seek to rest on anything. He is not attached to the created, and he is not attached to the uncreated.” (2)
Ch’en Hsiung says, “Once the mind is pure, nothing is more beautiful. Whoever gives birth to the mind while attached to the six realms of sensation does not have a pure mind.”
The Lankavatara Sutra says, “While most people are transformed by things, a bodhisattva is able to transform things. A person who can transform things is, in fact, the same as a bodhisattva.”
The Sixth Patriarch Sutra says, “Once, when the Fifth Patriarch was reading the Diamond Sutra, when he got to ‘They should give birth to a mind that isn’t attached to anything,’ the Sixth Patriarch (Hui-neng) was suddenly enlightened and said, ‘How could I have known my own nature was already pure? How could I have known my own nature was neither created nor destroyed? How could I have known my ow
n nature was already perfect? How could I have known my own nature does not change?’ The Fifth Patriarch said, ‘Not to recognize your own mind is to study the Dharma to no avail. If, as I was speaking, you recognized your own mind and saw your own nature, you are a leader of men and gods.’” (1)
Hui-neng says, “People who dwell on the sights they see and give birth to thoughts about sights are deluded. People who remain detached from the sights they see and do not give birth to thoughts about sights are awake. People who give birth to thoughts about sights are like a cloud-covered sky. People who do not give birth to thoughts about sights are like a cloudless sky where the sun and moon shine.”
Conze says, “The thought which the bodhisattva should produce, or raise, is a completely free thought, which depends on no object or motive. It is the white heat of wisdom intent on luminous transparency of the Void.”
Tao-ch’uan says, “Sitting silent late at night in a mountain shrine / desolate and deserted is just the way it is / why does the west wind stir the forest trees / suddenly a wild goose cry fills the sky.”
Textual note: In place of the first sentence, Kumarajiva and Bodhiruci have chu-p’u-sa mo-ho-sa ying ju-shih sheng ch’ing-ching-hsin (fearless bodhisattvas should give birth to a pure thought like this). All Chinese translators move yat na kvacit pratisthitan cittan utpadayitavyan (and not give birth to a thought attached to anything) to the end of this section. Yi-ching repeats the list of sensory objects twice and at the beginning of each repetition has pu-chu-yu-shih, pu-chu-sui-ch’u (not attached to an action and not attached to a place). After negating attachment to the six senses, Hsuan-tsang also negates the negation, e.g., pu-chu feissu . . . ying sheng ch’i-hsin (they should give birth to a thought that is not attached to no sight), etc. As elsewhere, Müller does not include dharmas among the objects of the senses.
“Subhuti, imagine a person with an immense, perfect
body whose self-existence is like that of Mount
Sumeru. What do you think, Subhuti? Would such
self-existence be great?”
Subhuti replied, “Great, indeed, Bhagavan. Such selfexistence
would be great, Sugata. And why? Because
self-existence, Bhagavan, ‘self-existence’ is said by the
Tathagata to be no existence. Thus is it called
‘self-existence.’ Because, Bhagavan, it is neither
existence nor no existence. Thus is it called ‘selfexistence.’”
With the word purusha (person), the Buddha reaches back to the earliest strata of the Indian psyche to the myth of Purusha, the heroic being who sacrificed himself and thereby created the world and mankind out of his dismembered parts. Thus, by purusha Indians understand “man,” and from the same dismembered body the English language gets the word “person.” And because the world and its human beings are the result of an act of renunciation, or charity, the Buddha uses Purusha (and uses him again in Chapters Thirteen and Seventeen) to represent the conception some disciples might have of the body of merit that bodhisattvas obtain from the practice of this teaching. For not only do bodhisattvas transform the world, they transform their own existence. The same cannot be said of arhans, who renounce their self-existence as well as the possibility of future rebirths or future bodies and thus the means to liberate others. And yet despite their transformed existence, bodhisattvas are not attached to their existence, for every existence is no existence. Even an existence as majestic as that of Purusha or Mount Sumeru turns out to be no existence. And yet, once a mountain is seen to be no mountain, neither is it not a mountain.
Asanga says, “Like the king of mountains, we can’t grasp our own reward. Karmic flows don’t exist nor created dharmas.” (21) Vasubandhu comments, “What is the purpose in comparing our reward body to Mount Sumeru? Neither grasps its own nature. Also, the reward body creates no new karma. What is no body is a great body because it transcends all karmic flows and is not a thing. Only a pure, perfect body does not depend on karmic attachments.”
Ch’en Hsiung says, “Mount Sumeru is the king of mountains. To say someone’s body is as great as this is beyond the realm of reason. However, the Buddha’s true nature is pure and free from form, free from attachments, free from obstructions, and includes the sky and contains the world. Even Sumeru is not as big. The Bhagavan wishes to use the true mind to wake people up, hence he uses a big body. But this big body is not a body. It is the dharma body, the true mind. Manjushri once asked the Buddha, ‘What constitutes a great body?’ And the Bhagavan answered, ‘What is no body. That is a great body. It includes all pure teachings of morality, meditation, and wisdom. Thus is it called a great body.’ This true body also refers to the true mind. And the true mind can swallow Mount Sumeru.”
Fu Hsi says, “What has form is not truly great. Only what has no form is real.”
Hui-neng says, “Although a person’s physical body might be great, if their inner mind is small, their body cannot be called great. Only if their inner mind is as great as the sky is vast can their body be called great. Even though their physical body is the size of Mount Sumeru, it isn’t great.”
Textual note: The term atma-bhava (self-existence) appears again in Chapters Thirteen and Fifteen. Kumarajiva does not include the last three sentences; Müller does not include the last two; and no Chinese translator has the double-negation na abhavas (nor no existence) in the penultimate sentence.
Chapter Eleven: The Buddha said, “Subhuti, what do you think? If there were as many rivers as there are grains of sand in the great river of the Ganges, would the number of grains of sand in all those rivers be great?”
Subhuti replied, “The number of rivers would be great, Bhagavan, how much more so their grains of sand.”
The Buddha said, “I shall tell you, Subhuti, so you shall know. If a man or woman filled as many worlds as there are grains of sand in all those rivers with the seven jewels and gave them as a gift to the tathagatas, the arhans, the fully-enlightened ones, what do you think, Subhuti, would the body of merit produced as a result by that man or woman be great?”
Subhuti replied, “It would be great, Bhagavan, great, indeed, Sugata. The body of merit produced as a result by that man or woman would be immeasurable and infinite.”
The Buddha said, “Subhuti, if, then, a man or woman filled as many worlds as that with the seven jewels and gave them as a gift to the tathagatas, the arhans, the fully-enlightened ones, and a noble son or daughter grasped but one four-line gatha of this dharma teaching and made it known and explained it to others, the body of merit produced as a result would be immeasurably, infinitely greater.”
CHAPTER ELEVEN
IN THE PREVIOUS CHAPTER, the Buddha outlined the attainments of the bodhisattva, all of which turned out to be no attainments: no truth realized, no world transformed, no colossal spiritual self offered up to others. But the Buddha is concerned that his disciples might now conclude that since nothing is attained, there is no need to cultivate the merit upon which such non-attainment is based. Throughout this sutra, the Buddha compares two kinds of merit: the merit from material offerings and the merit from the offering of liberation. The merit that comes from giving material things is like a pearl, beautiful to behold but essentially flawed and easily ground into powder, while the merit that comes from understanding and sharing this teaching with others is like a diamond, radiant, indestructible, and able to cut through all things. And it alone leads to buddhahood.
Chao-ming titles this: “The Superiority of Uncreated Merit.”
Hui-neng says, “Created merit has its eventual limits. Uncreated merit is far superior and has no equal. Thus follows a chapter on the superiority of uncreated merit.”
The Buddha said, “Subhuti, what do you think? If
there were as many rivers as there are grains of sand
in the great river of the Ganges, would the number
of grains of sand in all those rivers be great?”
Subhuti replied, “The number
of rivers would be
great, Bhagavan, how much more so their grains of
sand.”
The Ganga (Ganges) is a celestial river that was brought down to earth in the Himalayas. According to ancient Indian geography, it was one of four great rivers that flowed from Lake Anavatapta in Southwestern Tibet. From this legendary lake’s southern shore flowed the Indus, which emptied into the Southwest (Arabian) Sea. From the lake’s western shore flowed the Oxus (Amu Darya), which emptied into the Northwest (Aral) Sea. From the lake’s northern shore flowed the Sita, which emptied into the Northeast (Pohai) Sea between China and Korea. The Sita was also called the Yarkand Darya or Tarim River, and nowadays it disappears into the sands of the Taklamakan Desert near the nuclear test site of Lop Nor. But once upon a time, and it would have to have been Paleolithic time, it formed the upper reaches of the Yellow River. Finally, from the lake’s eastern shore flowed the Ganges, which emptied into the Southeast Sea (Bay of Bengal) between India and Bangladesh.
