by Red Pine
Hui-neng says, “When beliefs are endless, they are particles of dust. When the jewel of belief extends everywhere, this is called a world. Particles of dust and worlds are entities. Dharmas are all simply so. Thus follows a chapter on the meaning of belief in entities.”
Shridatta says, “Again the doubt arises, if sansara and nirvana cannot be grasped and there is thus no one who comes or goes, is not the Tathagata like Mount Sumeru, abiding as a unified entity?”
Te-ch’ing says, “This breaks through the view of unity and multiplicity. Subhuti does not yet understand how three bodies can be one. Thus, the Bhagavan uses atoms of dust and the universe as examples of what is neither one nor many to explain this. For atoms of dust are not one. And a universe is not many. When atoms are piled together to make a universe, there is a unity and yet no unity. And when a universe is separated into atoms of dust, there is a multitude and yet no multitude. From this point of view, the appearance of unity or multitude is impossible to explain.”
”Furthermore, Subhuti, if a noble son or daughter
took as many worlds as there are specks of dust
in a billion-world universe and by an expenditure
of limitless energy ground them into a multitude of
atoms, Subhuti, what do you think, would there be
a great multitude of atoms?”
The Buddha has finally brought us to his own body, the body of a tathagata, which neither comes nor goes, and which is our own true body. But having negated any attempt to define such a body in dynamic terms, he turns to static definitions. He knows people will try to view such a body in terms of its unity of form or in terms of its multiplicity of elements. Hence, he provides this example, using the largest and smallest entities known to his audience.
Asanga says, “Reducing a world to atoms reveals the truth by example. Atoms ground so fine show how sufferings end.” (69) Vasubandhu comments, “Reduction into atoms is meant as an example to show that the true realm of reality [dharma-dhatu] is neither a unity nor a multiplicity and that it is in this realm that the tathagata dwells.”
Hui-neng says, “The Buddha speaks of a billion-world universe to show that the number of particles of dust in the natures of all beings is like all the particles of dust in the billion worlds of the universe. The particles of illusory thoughts in the natures of all beings are thus no particles of dust. Those who hear this sutra and realize the Way advance toward enlightenment with the ever-shining light of wisdom. Thought after thought, they remain unattached and free of impurity. Such purified dust is what is meant by a ‘multitude of dust.’”
Li Wen-hui says, “Atoms of dust are delusions, and the universe is another name for our body. Atoms of dust are the cause. The universe is the effect. But our own true nature has no cause or effect. Once we realize this, there are no atoms of dust. So how could the universe exist? Thus, what is not an atom of dust is called an atom of dust. And what is not a universe is called a universe.”
Textual note: Among Chinese editions, only those of Dharmagupta and Hsuan-tsang include khalu punar (furthermore). No Chinese edition includes asankhyeyena viryena (limitless energy), nor does the Gilgit edition. The Stein edition includes asankhyeyna but not viryena. Kumarajiva simplifies this somewhat by grinding the billion worlds of a universe straightaway rather than grinding as many worlds as there are specks of dust in a billion-world universe. Dharmagupta and Yi-ching also prefer the simpler image of grinding the dust in a billion-word system into finer dust. Hsuan-tsang omits any mention of masim kuryat (grinding), though he retains all the worlds and dust of the Sanskrit editions. Meanwhile, Paramartha has shao-ch’eng hui-mo, ho-wei mo-wan (burn them into ash and combine them into pellets). Most of this chapter is missing in the Khotanese.
Subhuti replied, “So there would, Bhagavan.
So there would, Sugata. There would be a great
multitude of atoms. And why? If a great multitude
of atoms existed, Bhagavan, the Tathagata would
not have spoken of a ‘multitude of atoms.’
And why? Bhagavan, this multitude of atoms of
which the Tathagata speaks is said by the Tathagata
to be no multitude. Thus is it called a ‘multitude of
atoms.’ Also, Bhagavan, this ‘billion-world universe’
of which the Tathagata speaks is said by the
Tathagata to be no universe. Thus is it called
a ‘billion-world universe.’
According to one ancient Indian conception, matter is characterized by four elements: earth, water, fire, and wind, which represent its four states of existence: solid, liquid, heat, and motion. Every level of matter, whether examined with a telescope, a microscope, the human eye, or the mind, is composed of varying amounts of these four, whether it is a universe of a billion worlds or a single paramanu (atom). Here, however, the Buddha is not interested in perceptions of matter per se, but any ontological conception, regardless of its size. Because all such entities are either composed of other entities or themselves compose other entities, they have no nature of their own and do not exist independently of their relationships with other things. Hence, they are not themselves real. And because they are not real, the Buddha speaks of them in order to liberate us from our attachment to them.
Asanga says, “What isn’t put together is no entity. What is put together is no multiplicity.” (70) Vasubandhu comments, “Likewise, buddhahood and the realm of reality [dharma-dhatu] are neither identical nor different.”
Seng-chao says, “Atoms of dust are not real, hence they can be divided into a huge number. A universe has no existence but is formed by using these. Why is no universe called a universe? If it really existed, it should be formed of one nature and be indivisible.”
Hui-neng says, “The mind is the root of good and evil. It can be foolish or wise. Its movement and stillness cannot be fathomed. It is vast and without borders. Thus is it called a universe.”
Sheng-yi says, “If a noble son or daughter contemplates the four postures in the light of prajna, when their contemplation becomes strong enough, they will see that the world is empty and can be broken into atoms of dust. Atoms of dust are its cause, and the world is their effect. All worlds are made of the dust of delusions. The dust of good delusions creates worlds characterized by the three good states of existence. The dust of bad delusions creates worlds characterized by the three bad states of existence. Meanwhile, neutral delusions create the formless heavens of the four dhyana heavens, and the five delusions of deterioration [time, views, passions, beings, life] create the world of karma. If we break apart the universe, we can see the dust of our delusions and can also know whether these delusions are good, bad, or neutral.”
Chi-fo says, “Neither atoms of dust nor worlds are real. If atoms of dust were real, they couldn’t be combined to form a world. If worlds were real, they couldn’t be separated into atoms of dust. Every atom of dust contains the five elements [while most Indians identify four elements or states of matter, the Chinese prefer five: earth, wood, fire, metal, and water]. And every world contains the five elements. The nature of an atom of dust is the nature of a world. The nature of a world and the nature of an atom of dust are not one and not multiple. If you look for the appearance of oneness and multiplicity, you can’t find anything. Not only can you not see their appearance of oneness or multiplicity, you can’t explain their oneness or multiplicity. Both their names and appearances are empty and beyond the power of words.”
Sheng-yi says, “Viewing them with prajna, atoms of delusion have no nature of their own and are therefore empty. Because they are empty, they are no multitude of atoms. Because they are empty, atoms of delusion turn out to be atoms of purity. Thus, they are called atoms of dust.”
And how so? Bhagavan, if a universe existed,
attachment to an entity would exist. But whenever
the Tathagata speaks of attachment to an entity, the
Tathagata speaks of it as no att
achment. Thus is it
called ‘attachment to an entity.’”
If any entity actually existed, we could not escape being attached to it. Our lives would revolve around it, like planets around a star. But because we are attached to entities that do not really exist, the Buddha asks us to examine and discover the true nature of these entities and to free ourselves of our attachment to them. Ever since Chapter Four, the Buddha has been trying to put to rest this omnipresent belief at the core of our delusions, this belief in an entity, in something separate in time or space or mind. All of these entities are entities that our self could not manage to incorporate and the existence of which it has reluctantly had to admit. And yet none of them is real. But if none of them is real, then neither is the self real. For if there is nothing outside, there can be nothing inside.
Seng-chao says, “Using many to make one, no entity can be found.”
Hui-neng says, “To understand the mind, nothing surpasses the two dharmas of compassion and wisdom. It is by means of these two dharmas that we realize enlightenment. As for belief in an entity, because the mind attains something, it does not believe in an entity. When the mind attains nothing, this is called belief in an entity. Belief in an entity means talking about reality without getting rid of provisional names.”
The Buddha said, “Subhuti, attachment to an entity is
inexplainable and inexpressible. For it is neither a dharma
nor no dharma. Foolish people, though, are attached.”
In Chapter Seven, Subhuti says, “The dharma realized and taught by the Tathagata is incomprehensible and inexpressible. It is neither a dharma nor no dharma.” So why does the Buddha describe delusion here in much the same terms Subhuti applies to truth? Because truth and delusion are not separate. Delusion is truth seen through the eyes of foolish beings, while truth is delusion seen through the eyes of buddhas. Such delusions, however, are inexplicable and inexpressible because they are not real. Thus, they are no dharmas. But because people are attached to them, neither are they no dharmas.
Asanga says, “Because they only cling to words, fools believe in falsehoods. But since neither self nor dharmas exist, denying them brings no realization.” (71)
Seng-chao says, “What has a provisional name and no individuality cannot be explained with certainty.”
Hui-neng says, “By means of the two dharmas of compassion and wisdom does one attain the buddha-fruit of enlightenment, which cannot be fully explained or fathomed. Foolish people, meanwhile, grasp at words and actions and don’t practice the two dharmas of compassion and wisdom. But if they seek unexcelled enlightenment without practicing these two dharmas, how can they possibly attain it?”
Chi-fo says, “The Buddha is concerned that Subhuti is not yet free of attachments and doesn’t understand the truth of prajna and doesn’t understand the meaning of the dharma body and apparition body. For the apparition body doesn’t leave the dharma body, just as atoms of dust don’t leave the world. The world is like the dharma body, and atoms of dust are like the apparition body. Just as the world is broken into atoms of dust, the dharma body is divided into apparition bodies. The pile of atoms is a world. The apparition bodies are not different. The apparition bodies are also the substance of the dharma body. The dharma body is not one. But the dharma body can give birth to the activity of apparition bodies. The atoms of dust are not the world, and yet the atoms of dust are the substance of the world. The world is not atoms of dust, and yet the world is formed by atoms of dust. If the world were real, it could not be broken into atoms of dust. Likewise, if the dharma body were real, it could not give birth to apparition bodies.”
Textual note: Neither Kumarajiva, Bodhiruci, nor Paramartha includes avyavahara (inexplainable). Dharmagupta translates this as pu shih-suyen (not a common expression), while Yi-ching translates it as shih-yenlun (a worldly convention), or just the opposite of Dharmagupta. Conze translates it as “a linguistic convention.” Hsuan-tsang has pu-k’o hsi-lun (inexplainable). In Chapter Seven, the latter of these two terms is also applied to the dharmas spoken by the Buddha. Among Chinese editions, only Dharmagupta includes na dharma na adharma (is neither a dharma nor no dharma). The Gilgit edition does not include na adharma (nor no dharma).
Chapter Thirty-one: “And how so? Subhuti, if someone should claim that the Tathagata speaks of a view of a self, or that the Tathagata speaks of a view of a being, a view of a life, or a view of a soul, Subhuti, would such a claim be true?”
Subhuti said, “No, indeed, Bhagavan. No, indeed, Sugata. Such a claim would not be true. And why not? Bhagavan, when the Tathagata speaks of a view of a self, the Tathagata speaks of it as no view. Thus is it called a ‘view of a self.’”
The Buddha said, “Indeed, Subhuti, so it is. Those who set forth on the bodhisattva path know, see, and believe all dharmas but know, see, and believe them without being attached to the perception of a dharma. And why not? The perception of a dharma, Subhuti, the ‘perception of a dharma’ is said by the Tathagata to be no perception. Thus is it called the ‘perception of a dharma.’”
CHAPTER THIRTY-ONE
NOTHING IS REAL. From the Buddha’s begging-bowl universe, we come back to the belief that prevents a true perception of a ball of rice or anything else: the belief in the existence of a self, from which our beliefs in a being, a life, and a soul are derived as well as our belief in dharmas. The Buddha tells us that to understand the true nature of any entity, whether that entity is a self, a dharma, or even a buddha, we must not be blinded by our own perception of it. It is not the myriad atoms of dust or the billion-world universe that prevents us from attaining enlightenment but our mistaken views of such things as separate or permanent, as somehow real. But on closer examination, these entities turn out to be rather arbitrary views of reality founded on nothing more than linguistic conventions, which are themselves the detritus of previously established arbitrary views. And all of these views can be traced back to our view of the self. Thus, the Buddha returns to the view that began this sutra: setting forth on our daily round with an empty bowl and bestowing this teaching on those we meet.
Vasubandhu says, “Thus it is not the negation of atoms or dharmas that results in enlightenment but the negation of our belief in them.”
Chao-ming titles this: “Not Giving Birth to Concepts and Views.”
Hui-neng says, “The four views all are false. Thus are they called the four views. Thus follows a chapter on not giving birth to concepts and views.”
Huang-po says, “If you want to become a buddha, don’t learn a single teaching of the buddhas. Just learn not to seek and not to cling. By not seeking, thoughts are not born. By not clinging, thoughts do not die. What is not born and what does not die is the buddha.”
Te-ch’ing says, “If the dharma body is universal, and all things are unreal, they can’t be seen. So why does the Buddha speak of belief in these four appearances?”
“And how so? Subhuti, if someone should claim that the
Tathagata speaks of a view of a self, or that the Tathagata
speaks of a view of a being, a view of a life, or a view of a
soul, Subhuti, would such a claim be true?”
In Chapter Four, the Buddha brought up the subject of these four manifestations of self and warned against becoming attached to any sanjna (perception) associated with their nimitta (appearance). Here, he warns against attachment to dristi (views). The difference is that perceptions are much less pernicious and considerably easier to deal with. Hence, the Buddha deals with them at the beginning of the sutra. Views are perceptions that have become carved in our stone minds. Hence, he has waited until now to approach them. In Sanskrit, the word dristi refers not only to what we perceive but also to what we falsely perceive, our erroneous interpretations of reality.
Asanga says, “Thus, views and no views are useless grabs at nothing. Though they form a subtle screen, true knowledge sees right through.” (72)
Hui-neng says, “The Tath
agata speaks this sutra so that all beings will themselves realize the wisdom of prajna and themselves cultivate the fruit of enlightenment. Foolish people don’t understand the Buddha’s meaning and think the Tathagata is talking about the view of a self or a soul unaware that the Tathagata is teaching the profound, formless, conditionless paramita of prajna. When the Tathagata talks about the view of a self or a soul, it isn’t the same as the views that foolish people have of a self or a soul. The Tathagata says that all beings have the buddha nature. This is the view of a true self. And he says that all beings possess wisdom uncontaminated by passion and a nature that is already complete. This is the view of a soul. He says that all beings are themselves already free of affliction. This is the view of a being. And he says that the nature all beings possess is neither created nor destroyed. This is his view of a life.”
Chi-fo says, “The Buddha is concerned that Subhuti might wonder, if the Buddha’s dharma body cannot be seen by means of attributes, why does the Tathagata often speak about a self or person and so on? He thus breaks through the views of attachment to existence or non-appearance and reveals the truth of prajna.”
Textual note: Neither Kumarajiva, Paramartha, nor Yi-ching includes tat kasya hetoh (and how so). In place of sa samyak-vadamana vadet (would such a claim be true), Kumarajiva has shih-jen chieh wo suo-shuo-yi pu (would this person understand the meaning of what I say).
