by Red Pine
Calling to mind the sand of the Ganges is like calling to mind the sand of other great rivers. It is so fine it isn’t sand so much as it is mud, and Chinese commentators compare it to flour. It was an apt metaphor for infinity, and since the Gangetic plain was where Shakyamuni lived and taught, he often used the river’s sand for this purpose, for it was a metaphor easily understood by his audience.
The Buddha could have just as easily answered this question himself. But this is not his way of teaching. He asks Subhuti to make the comparison so that Subhuti will experience the nature of this teaching more directly. Subhuti is more than the Buddha’s straight man. He represents the intermediary through which we, too, are able to approach this teaching. As Subhuti learns (or unlearns), so do we.
Textual note: At the beginning of this chapter, neither Kumarajiva nor Yi-ching includes bhagavan aha (the Buddha said).
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.”
Concerning arocayami te subhute prativedayami te (I shall tell you, Subhuti, so you shall know), Conze says, “This was a formula often used for formal pronouncements by the Buddha.” The Buddha thinks Subhuti does not really understand how great an offering the bodhisattva’s offering surpasses. Hence, he inserts this phrase for emphasis.
The Buddha also reminds Subhuti that understanding begins with something as small as a grain of sand. Like William Blake, the Buddha asks us to see a world in every grain. But here, the Buddha asks us not only to see a world but to see all the sand in that world as well and then to imagine that each grain of sand in that world is, itself, a world. In this manner, the Buddha stretches our conceptions of size and number beyond the limits of comprehension. In Chapter Eight, the Buddha compared the merit from an offering of the billion jewel-covered worlds of a universe. Here, he expands that offering beyond the power of calculation. Such is the Buddha’s way of leading us to break through the finite to the realm of the infinite, which is the purpose of this sutra.
Although the term sapta-ratna (seven-jewels) occurs in the Pali Canon, it is not defined beyond “gold, silver, and other jewels.” In Sanskrit scriptures such as the Mahavastu, these “other jewels” are said to include aquamarine, crystal, pearls, carnelian, and nacre. In other Mahayana sutras, rubies, agate, coral, and black mica also appear in the list. Some scholars think these seven were an elaboration of the seven treasures of the state: the king and his ministers, the territory and the capital, the treasury, the army, and allies. More likely, they were simply manifestations of the sacred number that seven represents. They also call to mind the Indian system of analysis by means of which all material things are divided into a series of greater or smaller entities, each of which is composed of seven equal parts.
In any case, by asking us to imagine an offering of the most precious of substances in amounts beyond the power of calculation or comprehension, the Buddha sets the stage for an offering of something that seems to be the most insignificant of things and yet is the most inconceivable of things. The Buddha knows that people undertake spiritual cultivation with a goal in mind, namely the goal of acquiring and accumulating religious merit so that they might gain a better rebirth and access to the sanctum of their chosen faith. But the body of merit they thereby acquire is limited in time and space and cannot compare to the body of merit of a bodhisattva who understands and shares this teaching with others.
Hardayal says, “The perception of punya (merit) is one of the central concepts of Buddhism. Every act, which is inspired by charity, or by charity and morality (sila), produces some punya, which leads to welfare in this life and also secures happy rebirths. But a unit of punya confers a certain kind of happiness on earth or in a heaven only for a certain period of time, after which it is exhausted. Still, all that is noble, beautiful, auspicious, glorious, and desirable in the world is the result of punya. Punya is thus a wonderful Power, and it is exalted and glorified in Mahayanist literature to such an extent that it was finally regarded almost as the equivalent of prajna and bodhi, as the increasing appreciation of active altruism in social life gave rise to the new conception that punya by itself could lead to Enlightenment.” (The Bodhisattva Doctrine in Buddhist Sansrkit Literature p. 188-189)
Textual note: As for the sentence that includes aroca (tell) and prativeda (inform/cause to know), Kumarajiva, Bodhiruci, and Yi-ching limit themselves to wo chin shih-yen kao ju (I shall now tell you the truth), while the other Chinese versions (Paramartha, Dharmagupta, Hsuan-tsang) have wo chin chiao ju, wo chin shih ju / yu wo ju, chih wo ju / wu chin kao ju, kai-chiao yu ju (I shall now tell you and show you). The Tibetan has khyod kyis khon du chud par byaho (you should remember this in your mind). In place of stri va purusha va (woman or man), Kumarajiva, Bodhiruci, and Paramartha have shan-nan-tzu shan-nu-jen (noble son or daughter). As elsewhere, Kumarajiva does not include any mention of the recipient of such an offering. Also, the last sentence of Subhuti’s response is absent in both Kumarajiva and Yi-ching.
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.”
As noted in Chapter Eight, a gatha refers to the shortest metrical unit of ancient India, which was usually a four-line poem. Since gathas were used to summarize longer prose sections of a sutra, they were used extensively in oral transmission of sacred teachings. In China, the gatha was the seal of understanding every Zen student composed upon breaking through the bonds of delusion. Thus, a gatha is much more precious than all the jewels in all the worlds one can possibly imagine. Despite their value to human beings, jewels possess the three characteristics of all other created dharmas: origination, limited duration, and dissolution, while the teaching of this sutra transcends such limitations and is the source of buddhahood. Hence, far greater merit results from offering even the smallest part of this sutra, not to buddhas, who no longer have any need for such a gift, but to other beings, all of whom possess the buddha nature yet who remain blind to its presence.
Asanga says, “To illumine shades of greatness and establish which is better, this reveals again how the second exceeds the first.” (22) Vasubandhu comments, “Previously (in Chapter Eight), a metaphor of a billion-world-system was used to reveal the greatness of merit. Now countless universes are used. This is meant to gradually teach beings to expand their belief and increase their understanding. Also the first form of merit does not support enlightenment, while the second form of merit establishes sufficient cause.”
T’ung-li says, “The ancients said, ‘A single magic pearl is a thousand times more precious than all the jewels in the sea.’”
Hui-neng says, “Someone who makes an offering of the seven jewels obtains a reward within the Three Realms. Someone who explains the sutras of the Mahayana so that those who hear them give birth to great wisdom and reach the highest path clearly acquires merit that surpasses that of the seven jewels.”
Wang Jih-hsiu says, “The Buddha often says that material offerings have limits, while dharma offerings are inexhau
stible, that material offerings don’t transcend the Realm of Desire, while dharma offerings transcend all realms. Thus, it is no wonder that the merit that comes from dharma offerings surpasses the former by an incalculable amount.”
Conze says, “The four major sections of the sutra each conclude with a few remarks on the merit which forms the basis of the spiritual achievements discussed and which is traced back to the teachings of this sutra. Chapters Eleven and Twelve in this way are connected to Chapter Eight.”
Tao-ch’uan says, “Don’t exchange gold for copper. My song goes: ‘Sifting sand in the sea is a waste / stirring up dust wherever you go / better to take out your own precious jewels / a dead tree blooms and enjoys another spring.’”
Textual note: Paramartha does not include bhagavan aha (the Buddha said). Neither Kumarajiva nor Yi-ching includes yas ca . . . samyak-sanbuddha (if, then . . . fully-enlightened ones), nor does Conze in his translation, although his Sanskrit text includes the lines he omits. Neither Bodhiruci, Paramartha, nor Yi-ching includes any mention of the recipient of the offering. The Tibetan does not include kula-putra va kuladuhita (noble son or daughter). Neither Kumarajiva, Bodhiruci, Paramartha, Dharmagupta, nor Yi-ching includes deshayet (made it known). And Hsuan-tsang adds tu-sung chiu-ching t’ung-li (recite, study, and penetrate the inner meaning).
Chapter Twelve: “Furthermore, Subhuti, wherever but one four-line gatha of this dharma teaching is spoken or explained, that place is like a stupa in the world of devas, humans, and asuras. How much more shall they be remarkably blessed, Subhuti, who memorize, recite, and master this entire teaching and explain it in detail to others. For in that place, Subhuti, dwells a teacher or one who represents the guru of wisdom.”
CHAPTER TWELVE
THIS TEACHING is the true body of the Buddha, and wherever even a single gatha of this teaching is spoken or explained that place shall be venerated as if it contained the relics of a buddha. In fact, these words do contain the relics of a buddha. But if dead buddhas are deserving of such respect, how much more so living buddhas. Chuang-tzu once compared studying the words of sages to collecting dried turds, while Chinese Zen masters demanded huo-yu (living words) from their disciples. Hence, when we study and explain this teaching to others, we should not restrict ourselves to the written or printed text. Only if we discover and make known its true meaning will this lineage continue.
Chao-ming titles this: “Venerating the True Teaching.”
Hui-neng says, “Wherever this sutra is found is honored by gods and dragons. Thus follows a chapter on venerating the true teaching.”
“Furthermore, Subhuti, wherever but one four-line
gatha of this dharma teaching is spoken or
explained, that place is like a stupa
In ancient India, the word caitya (which is the word used here) referred to any sacred place, either natural, such as a grove or spring, or man-made, such as a mausoleum or shrine. It thus had a much wider application than the word stupa, with which it later became confused and which referred exclusively to a conical structure erected to enshrine the relics of a buddha. It was at the Kapala Caitya (Alms Bowl Sanctuary) outside Vaishali that the Buddha told Ananda that if the Tathagata so desired he could live out the remainder of the kalpa. When Ananda failed to request that he do so, the Buddha announced that he would die within three months (Maha Parinibbana Sutta: 3). Hence, caityas were originally sanctuaries and only later identified with the stupas constructed within them. Here a stupa is meant. For when the Buddha mentions caityas again in Chapter Fifteen he does so in connection with making prostrations and circumambulations. In addition to such acts of veneration, pilgrims also honored stupas with offerings of the seven jewels, fruits, flowers, and incense, sacred images and scriptures. When Yi-ching visited India during the seventh century, he reported that the Gatha of the Chain of Causation was especially popular as an offering among the Buddhist pilgrims who frequented these holy sites. In his commentary, Conze notes, “In past ages these shrines were something to reckon with. Respect for them assured the prosperity of nations, and they were inviolate sanctuaries for people in fear for their lives.”
In the Perfection of Wisdom in Eight Thousand Lines, the Buddha tells Shakra, King of the Gods, “The place in which one takes up, bears in mind, preaches, studies, spreads, demonstrates, expounds, explains or repeats this perfection of wisdom, in that place beings cannot be hurt by men or ghosts, nor can they be injured or overpowered by them, except as a punishment for their past deeds, because this perfection of wisdom makes the spot where it is found into a true shrine for beings, worthy of being worshiped and adored, into a shelter for beings who come to it, a refuge, a place of rest, and final relief.” (3) While it would seem that the Buddha is using caitya here in the sense of “sanctuary,” immediately after this statement, Shakra then asks the Buddha to compare the merit from honoring this teaching to that from building caityas. Hence, throughout the perfection of wisdom texts, caitya usually has the meaning of “stupa.”
As noted above, the composition of a gatha was part of every buddha’s bequest to those he instructed. Shakyamuni, for example, left this one: “The dharma at the root of dharmas is no dharma / but the dharma of no dharma is still a dharma / here where I teach no dharma / how could the dharma of dharmas be a dharma?” And Vipashyin, the first buddha of the present kalpa, is said to have left this one: “The body is born from formlessness / appearances rise like illusions / the illusory mind doesn’t really exist / and empty karma has no place to rest.”
Sheng-yi says, “If prajna is in a person’s heart, the relics of the buddha’s dharma body are in that person’s body.”
Textual note: Yi-ching does not have khalu punah (furthermore); neither does the Stein edition. Neither Kumarajiva, Bodhiruci, nor the Stein edition has sanprakashaya (explain). Yi-ching does not include bhashaya (speak), and Dharmagupta adds fen-pieh (analyze). For caitya, Kumarajiva and Bodhiruci have t’a-miao (stupa), while the other Chinese translators prefer to transliterate the word.
in the world of devas, humans, and asuras.
One of a buddha’s ten titles is shasta deva-manu-shyanam (teacher of devas and humans). The term deva refers to beings who inhabit the various heavens in the realms of Desire, Form and Formlessness. Free of passion, they are also relatively free of suffering, but they are still bound by the law of karma and destined to be reborn in less happy realms. Hence, they, too, seek the Dharma. From deva, we get such English words as “deity,” “divine,” and “diva.” Thus the term is often translated as “gods.”
The term asura, on the other hand, means “not celestial” and seems to have been taken over from the Persians, who at one time worshiped Ahura as their supreme god. With the arrival of the Aryans in India, Ahura was dethroned, multiplied, and viewed as the host of gods who had been driven out of paradise. Basically, asuras have the karma of gods but not their happy disposition. Instead of enjoying their good fortune, they make war on gods. Still, they have a special affinity for the Dharma and are viewed as its protectors.
Together, devas, asuras, and humans make up the three fortunate realms of existence. They are fortunate because their suffering is far less than that experienced by their unfortunate counterparts: animals, hungry ghosts, and sinners in Hell. They are also fortunate because they are capable of understanding teachings that concern meditation and wisdom, whereas animals, hungry ghosts, and sinners are only able to grasp teachings that concern moral behavior. This is why the Buddha only mentions devas, asuras, and humans in this sutra.
Tseng Feng-yi says, “When Shakra teaches the Dharma to the heavenly host, the devas all gather around his throne and make obeisance. Because they venerate the teaching, they honor the throne. In China, when Lin-chi visited Bodhidharma’s stupa, the caretaker asked him if he would bow first to the Buddha or to the Zen Patriarch. Lin-chi replied that he would bow to neither. When the caretaker asked what they had done to deserve such disrespect, Lin-chi shook the sleeves of his ro
be and left in apparent disgust.”
Textual note: Some commentators have noted that in some editions, devas and humans are mentioned here but not asuras. The term does not appear, for example, in the Khotanese translation. And they have therefore suggested it should be deleted here. However, asuras are present at the end of this sutra, and they are also present in other prajna texts. Hence, I see no reason to exile them yet again. They are present in the Sanskrit editions of Müller and Conze as well as in all Chinese translations. This line is missing in the Stein edition, but then so is most of the chapter.
How much more shall they be remarkably blessed,
Subhuti, who memorize, recite, and master this
entire teaching and explain it in detail to others.
If the place where a single gatha of this sutra is spoken becomes a refuge, how much more so those who master this entire sutra and teach it to others. For those who teach in the Buddha’s place are said to be samanvagata (blessed). They are blessed by the prajna-paramita, and they in turn bless those who hear or encounter this teaching. For those who teach what buddhas teach share the same body of merit possessed by every buddha. Whether they are monks or not, they wear the robe of his teaching. Such statements as this appear regularly in Mahayana scriptures and, no doubt, have helped contribute to the dissemination of such teachings far beyond monastic walls.
