by Red Pine
Te-ch’ing says, “This eliminated the doubt that the Tathagata’s reward body spoke this dharma. From the time the Tathagata appeared in the world, he spoke no dharma. He attacked the attachments of beings with whatever was expedient, using a single ‘no’ or ‘not’ or other arresting expressions that brought the delusions of beings to a halt.”
Li Wen-hui says, “His mind is pure. Whether speaking or silent, he is always truthful. When conditions arise, he acts. When conditions end, he rests.”
Thich Nhat Hanh says, “When we can see the non-rose elements when looking at a rose, it is safe for us to use the word ‘rose.’ When we look at A and see that A is not A, we know that A is truly A. Then A is no longer a dangerous obstacle for us.”
Textual note: In place of vitathan-vadet (claim an untruth), which is absent in the Stein and Gilgit editions, all Chinese editions have (fei) pang (malign). For asata-udgrhita (misconception), Kumarajiva and Bodhiruci have pu-neng-chieh (cannot understand), while Yi-ching does not have the phrase at all. Kumarajiva does not include the repetition of dharma-deshana (teaching of a dharma) at the beginning of the penultimate (not-A) sentence. For upalabhyate (to be found), Kumarajiva, Bodhiruci, and Yi-ching have k’o-shuo (can/to be taught), while Paramartha and Dharmagupta have nothing. Only Hsuan-tsang has k’o-te (to be found).
Upon hearing this, the venerable Subhuti asked the
Buddha, “Bhagavan, will there be any beings in the
future, in the final epoch, in the final period, in the
final five hundred years of the dharma-ending age,
who hear a dharma such as this and believe it?”
This is Subhuti’s refrain whenever he reflects on the profundity of this teaching, in this case, the emptiness of the teaching itself. Subhuti wonders how such a teaching can possibly be understood by humans as their spiritual insight declines in the “dharma-ending age.” But such a question is rooted in a misconception of the nature of this teaching as being constrained by the boundaries of time.
Te-ch’ing says, “Because Subhuti’s conception of life and death has not yet ended, he gives birth to the notion of future beings. The Buddha answers that beings are essentially real and one with the Dharma. How could they have any future appearance.”
Textual note: The phrase evam-ukta (this having been said / upon hearing this) is missing in all Chinese translations. For the longer time expression, Kumarajiva, Bodhiruci, Paramartha, and Yi-ching all have simply yu wei-lai / tang-lai-shih (in future ages), with which the Tibetan and the Gilgit edition agree.
The Buddha said, “Neither beings, Subhuti, nor no
beings. And how so? Beings, Subhuti, ‘beings’ are all
spoken of by the Tathagata, Subhuti, as no beings.
Thus are they called ‘beings.’”
This sutra has advanced since Chapter Six, when Subhuti asked the same question and the Buddha said there would, indeed, be such beings. As the Buddha now returns to the resolution that began this sutra, the resolution to liberate all beings, he now examines beings in the same light as the teaching by means of which he liberates them, namely, with his buddha eye. Just as the teaching is no teaching, so, too, are beings no beings. If beings were beings, bodhisattvas could not avoid creating the perception of a being and becoming attached to beings. Also, if bodhisattvas were beings, they could not become buddhas. It is because they are free of the perception of being that bodhisattvas become buddhas and liberate all beings.
Vasubandhu says, “Again a doubt arises, if we say buddhas teach no dharmas and do not exist apart from their dharma body, who can possibly believe such a dharma?”
Asanga says, “Teaching and teacher are both profound. How could no one not believe? Such beings are not beings, and sages not not sages.” (55) Vasubandhu comments, “If someone believes this sutra, they are not beings, nor are they not beings. They are not beings because they are not ordinary beings and do not not possess the body of sages. But because they are beings who do not not possess the body of sages, they think they possess the body of sages. Thus, the Buddha says no beings are beings.”
Tao-ch’uan says, “Among beings, there are sages and ordinary beings. Ordinary beings are unable to believe in prajna. Only beings with the body of a sage can believe and understand it. They are not beings because they are not ordinary beings. Neither are they not beings, for nor are they not beings with the body of a sage. Beings with the body of a sage are those who have the capacity for the Mahayana. How can they be seen as ordinary mortals and incapable of belief? Fire is hot. The wind moves. Water is wet. The earth is solid. My song goes, ‘How can a deer turn into a stallion / and who says a crow is a high-flying eagle / still they aren’t the least bit different / horses and donkeys and how many others.’”
Sheng-yi says, “Beings don’t actually come into being but are a combination of the five skandhas. We just give them the name ‘beings.’ But the name is actually empty, because beings are empty.
They are not beings. Beings don’t come into being, they arise from causes. From evil causes arise beings of the three evil paths, from good causes arise beings of the three good paths, from lesser-path causes arise beings who are shravakas and pratyeka-buddhas, from selfless causes arise beings whose minds are set on the Mahayana, and from the causes of compassion, kindness, renunciation, and joy arise beings who are without peer. But beings do not come into being. All beings come into being according to causes. Thus, they are called beings. If beings could exist and give birth to being, this would be like producing a head from on top of one’s head. It would never end.”
Hung-lien says, “The Buddha says they are not beings because they all possess the same true nature and have the same source as the Buddha. Thus, he says they are not beings. And he says they are not not beings because they turn their backs on the truth and chase the false and forsake their own spirit.”
Tao-yuan says, “By means of such belief they are already different from ordinary beings. But their current karmic situation is that of a being. Hence, they are neither beings nor not beings.”
Textual note: Both Subhuti’s question and the Buddha’s reply were missing from Kumarajiva’s original translation of 403 and from commentaries up through the late T’ang. According to one story of how this omission was discovered, in the year 822 a monk named Ling-yu suddenly expired, and two messengers from the spirit world carried him off to see Yama, King of the Netherworld. When Yama asked Ling-yu what good deeds he had done, the monk said he had recited the Diamond Sutra every day for many years. When Yama asked to hear the sutra, Ling-yu recited the entire text from memory. But after Ling-yu had finished, Yama said, “Your sutra is missing a section. It’s like a broken necklace. The complete text is carved on a stone stele at Chungli Temple in Haochou. Go back and find the missing section, and I will give you ten more years to propagate its teaching.” Suddenly, Ling-yu came back to life. When he reported his encounter to the emperor, the emperor ordered his officials to find the stele, which turned out to be Bodhiruci’s translation, and which was then used to rectify Kumarajiva’s omission. Chiang Wei-nung, however, calls this account into question, noting that copies of the “defective” text were still in use at court in 824 and suggests the “correction” took place sometime in the following century.
Yi-ching begins the Buddha’s reply with yu sheng-hsin-che, pi fei chung-sheng, fei fei chung-sheng (those who believe are neither beings nor are they no beings). Throughout this section, the Stein and Gilgit editions have sarve-sattva (all beings) for occurrences of sattva (beings). Paramartha and Hsuan-tsang do not include the repetition of chung-sheng (beings) at the beginning of the penultimate (not-A) sentence. Paramartha also has fei fei chung-sheng (nor are they no beings) at the end of the penultimate sentence. See Chapter Seventeen for a similar passage.
Chapter Twenty-two: “Subhuti, what do you think? Did the Tathagata realize any such dharma as unexcelled, perfect enlightenment?”
The venerable Subhuti replied, “No,
indeed, Bhagavan. The Tathagata did not realize any such dharma, Bhagavan, as unexcelled, perfect enlightenment.”
The Buddha said, “So it is, Subhuti. So it is. The slightest dharma is neither obtained nor found therein. Thus is it called ‘unexcelled, perfect enlightenment.’”
◆ CHPATER TWENTY-TWO
IN THE PREVIOUS CHAPTERS, the Buddha examined the nature of his reward and apparition bodies, which are the bodies obtained upon realizing and teaching the dharma of unexcelled, perfect enlightenment. He now turns to enlightenment itself, which is his real body. The Buddha has already told us that when he was the ascetic Sumedha, he did not obtain any such dharma from Dipankara. It would be more accurate to say that at that meeting he lost all dharmas. For it was at that meeting that he gained an acceptance of the birthlessness of all dharmas. The Buddha now skips his intervening lifetimes and proceeds to Bodhgaya, where he reached the end of the bodhisattva path and realized enlightenment. While others might proclaim the wonders of such a world-shaking experience, the Buddha denies that he obtained or found anything at all. The teacher teaches no teaching because he learned nothing. And he learned nothing because the teaching contains no teaching. What the Buddha learned was like the jewel he himself placed in the ragged clothing of a poor traveler in the Nirvana Sutra. Enlightenment turns out to be something the Buddha was never without. So how could he obtain it? Then, too, the hand cannot grasp itself, nor can the mind know itself.
Chao-ming titles this: “No Dharma to Realize.”
Hui-neng says, “Unexcelled, perfect enlightenment does not actually include the slightest dharma. But the dharma that contains nothing is everywhere around us. Thus follows a chapter on not realizing any dharma.”
Te-ch’ing says, “Since the dharma body has no form and no dharma can be found, how does one cultivate all beneficial dharmas and realize enlightenment? In what follows, the Buddha resolves these doubts with the doctrines of non-realization [Chapter Twenty-two] and the equality of dharmas [Chapter Twenty-three].”
“Subhuti, what do you think? Did the Tathagata
realize any such dharma as unexcelled, perfect
enlightenment?
The venerable Subhuti replied, “No, indeed, Bhagavan.
The Tathagata did not realize any such dharma,
Bhagavan, as unexcelled, perfect enlightenment.”
Subhuti began this sutra by asking the Buddha how bodhisattvas should travel the path to buddhahood. One by one, the Buddha has divested Subhuti and his fellow disciples of any delusions or attachments they might have had concerning such a path. In the previous chapter, the Buddha put an end to the perception that buddhas teach anything. He now puts an end to the perception that buddhas realize anything. Of course, this begs the question asked by Bodhidharma, “You talk about non-realization. But how do you realize non-realization?” Thus, Lao-tzu says, “Those who seek learning gain every day / those who seek the Way lose every day / they lose and they lose / until they find nothing to do / nothing to do means nothing not done.” (Taoteching: 48)
Chi-fo says, “The marvelous dharma of prajna is actually something in your own home. Since you have never lost it, how can you find it? If you find something, you are not free of attachments and have not yet broken through the delusions of subject and object. Previously, the Buddha talked about obtaining the fruit of merit by sowing the seeds of charity. Here, he says nothing is obtained. This refers to the nature of merit, with which the fruit of merit cannot compare.”
Hui-neng says, “When the thought of realization is gone, this is enlightenment.”
Regarding “unexcelled, perfect enlightenment,” Hardayal says, “The simple root-perception, shorn of all accretions and amplifications, is Omniscience. It has been described as incomprehensible for the ratiocinative intellect. It is infinite, because the qualities that produce it are infinite. It is pure and perfect Knowledge of all things, free from uncertainty and obscurity.” (ibid. p. 19)
Textual note: Kumarajiva puts this question into the mouth of Subhuti but does not include Subhuti’s answer. At the beginning of Subhuti’s response, Hsuan-tsang has ju wo chieh fo-suo-shuo yi-che (as I understand the meaning of what the Buddha has taught). Hsuan-tsang also includes the additional titles of the Buddha in both question and answer. Yi-ching does not include a-nuo-to-lo san-mao san-p’u-t’i (unexcelled, perfect enlightenment) in the answer.
The Buddha said, “So it is, Subhuti. So it is. The slightest
dharma is neither obtained nor found therein. Thus is it
called ‘unexcelled, perfect enlightenment.’”
Dharmas are the building blocks of reality, and some early Buddhist sects identified more than a hundred. These included the senses and sensations, the mind and its various psychological functions and states, nirvana and space. However, in his use of the adjective anus (slightest), from the root anu (atom), the Buddha does not have in mind any of these later analytical entities but simply anything held to be real: a speck of reality. When the Buddha realized the dharma body of unexcelled, perfect enlightenment, he not only did not find the greatest of dharmas, he did not find the slightest, most insignificant of dharmas. He did not find even an atom of reality. But what is devoid of even an atom of reality is reality itself, which is the Buddha’s dharma body. The awareness of this is what the Buddha means by “unexcelled, perfect enlightenment.”
In his commentary, Nan Huai-chin likens “So it is, Subhuti. So it is” to an enigma that doesn’t make sense until we solve it ourselves. And he cites the story about Chinhua Chu-ti. Master Chinhua Chu-ti learned One-Finger Zen from Hangchou T’ien-lung, and this is all he taught. Whenever anyone asked for instruction, he held up one finger and nothing more. One day when he was absent, a young novice tried this on a layman who had come for instruction. When the worshipper was enlightened, the novice couldn’t wait to tell the Master. But when Chu-ti heard what happened, he went into the kitchen and came out and asked the novice to show him again. When the novice stuck out his finger, Chu-ti whipped out a knife and cut it off. As the novice ran screaming out the door, Chu-ti yelled his name. When the novice stopped, Chu-ti asked him the meaning of enlightenment. Without thinking, the novice stuck out his fist. But when he saw his hand without its finger, he suddenly understood the meaning of One-finger Zen. (Chuantenglu: 11)
Asanga says, “Because no dharma dwells therein, bodhi is called unexcelled. Because the dharma realm doesn’t grow, its nature is pure and equal.” (56) Vasubandhu comments, “Only if there is no dharma that can be realized can it be called unexcelled, perfect enlightenment. And because nothing can surpass it, it is thus called unexcelled.” The last two lines of this refer to what is said in the next chapter. Dharmagupta’s translation gives tseng-chien (grow or shrink).
Seng-chao says, “The Buddha is a person. Enlightenment is the Way. Because the Buddha realized the Way, he explained it to people. But if the Buddha says there is no dharma to explain, did he realize the Way? Enlightenment means an end of form and the omnipresence of emptiness. Since enlightenment has no form, what is there to realize? Complete extinction in which nothing is realized is the ultimate Way.”
Hui-neng says, “The Buddha says that he does not actually have any thought of seeking or obtaining enlightenment. And because of this, it can be called ‘unexcelled, perfect enlightenment.’” In the Sixth Patriarch Sutra Hui-neng also says, “Our wonderful nature is essentially empty, and there is not a single dharma to be found. Since there is not a single dharma to be found, how could there be any enlightenment to realize? The Buddha found nothing and realized nothing. Since it had no name he could name, he reluctantly called it ‘unexcelled, perfect enlightenment.’”
Yen Ping says, “When a dharma can be found, it is called dharma-bondage. Only when no dharma can be found is it called liberation.”
Tao-ch’uan says, “Looking for someone else isn’t as good as looking for yourself. My song goes: ‘Water drops turn into ice, we believe / green willows, fragrant plant
s, forms without end / spring flowers, autumn moon, things never stop / listen in quiet to the partridge cry.”
Sheng-yi says, “During his seclusion-until-death in the Tienmu Mountains, the Sung-dynasty monk, Miao-feng, once composed this gatha: ‘Planting rice sprouts into rice fields / I look down and see the sky / purifying the senses is the Way after all / walking backward turns out to be forward [one moves backward when planting rice sprouts].’ Thus, in cultivating and seeking the Way, one moves backward, not forward. Going forward means thinking about finding something.”
Lao-tzu says, “The Tao moves the other way.” (Taoteching: 40)
Textual note: Neither Kumarajiva, Bodhiruci, nor Yi-ching includes sanvidyate (obtained), while Paramartha substitutes she (lost) to go with upalabhyate (found). Both sanvidyate and upalabhyate are present in the Gilgit and Stein editions as well as those of Müller and Conze. After anur api tatra dharma na sanvidyate na upalabhyate (the slightest dharma is neither obtained nor found therein), Kumarajiva and Bodhiruci have an additional yu a-nuo-to-lo san-mao san-p’u-t’i (in unexcelled, perfect enlightenment). After sanbodhi (enlightenment), Paramartha looks ahead to the next chapter and adds the phrase p’ing-teng p’ing-teng (it is everywhere equal). Following this, Paramartha continues, fu-tz’u hsu-pu-t’i chu-fo chu-fo-chueh-chih wu-yu ch’a-pieh, shih-ku shuo-ming a-nuo-to-lo san-mao san-p’u-t’i (furthermore, Subhuti, as there is no difference among buddhas or in the enlightenment of buddhas, it is therefore called unexcelled, perfect enlightenment).
