Explanation of the Detailed Teaching

Part One

Explanation of Chapters 22 and 23

5.1Thus, first of all, along with a teaching of miraculous powers and along with a teaching of the results, the intermediate explanation of the perfection of wisdom has been completed. As explained, the Tathāgata in this perfection of wisdom gives a threefold teaching: brief, middling, and detailed. Of them, the teaching in brief and middling modes based on trainees is finished.

5.2From here on, having brought unmatured trainees to maturity by removing doubts that have arisen, a detailed teaching in two parts, divided into the conventional and ultimate modes, causes those who have been brought to maturity to realize the meaning of true reality.

5.3Then,

“all the Four Mahārājas stationed in the great billion world systems together with many hundreds of thousands of one hundred million billion gods were assembled in that very retinue,”

and so on. Why is it also teaching that they are all assembled on the occasion of a discourse powered by the Tathāgata?

5.4You should know that this teaching of the perfection of wisdom is unprecedented, so there has to be a brief teaching about the retinue assembling, as a prior indicator that there is going to be an unprecedented teaching of the Dharma. Also, the show of light where he demonstrates emitting light rays and arraying light is done as a prior indicator that there is going to be an explanation of the Dharma.

5.5Why does the chief of the gods not address his questions to the Tathāgata? Why does he ask the elder Subhūti?

At that time, those in the retinue are to be trained by an explanation by a śrāvaka, so, by way of asking him, they also have asked the Tathāgata.

“How should bodhisattva great beings stand in the perfection of wisdom? What is the bodhisattva great beings’ [F.174.a] perfection of wisdom? And how should bodhisattva great beings train in the perfection of wisdom?”

The answers to these three questions are explained below.

What is the bodhisattva great beings’ perfection of wisdom?

5.7There, previously, taking the knowledge of all aspects as the point of departure, it gave a middle-length explanation based on the nonconceptual perfection of wisdom. Here, taking the knowledge of path aspects as the point of departure, it teaches the conceptual and nonconceptual perfection of wisdom that is the practice of bodhisattvas.

“Those who have entered into flawlessness are incapable of producing the thought of unsurpassed, perfect, complete awakening.”

Take this as saying that those fixed in a state of error are, for the time being, without good fortune.

“And yet if they also produce the thought of unsurpassed, perfect, complete awakening I still rejoice in them also.”

If they hear this explanation it will not be in vain, because a scripture says, “On the other side of infinite, countless thousands of hundreds of one hundred million billion eons they will enter into buddhahood.”

“Kauśika, what is the bodhisattva great beings’ perfection of wisdom?”

and so on. This is the middle of the three questions but is being taught here first because if it is taught thus, it is easier to understand.

5.11Even though it is true that this perfection of wisdom is the all-knowledge side for the śrāvaka and pratyekabuddha levels and the knowledge of path aspects side for the bodhisattva levels, here in this knowledge of path aspects that has to be taught to a bodhisattva who wants to attain the knowledge of all aspects there are both.

5.12There, in regard to the all-knowledge side, you should know that

“Kauśika, here bodhisattva great beings with a thought of awakening connected with the knowledge of all aspects should pay attention to form [F.174.b] as impermanent, and they should pay attention to it as suffering, selfless, empty, a disease, a boil,”

and so on, is an explanation teaching the fifteen attentions, and is teaching the seven attentions focused on the cessation of dependent origination.

5.13In regard to the knowledge of path aspects side, it teaches that, with the nonapprehending attentions to the

“perfections,”

up to

“the distinct attributes,”

and with

“putting one part of the picture together with the other parts,”

and so on.

5.14Among these, I will explain the words “impermanent” and so on, in the way they are on the śrāvaka and pratyekabuddha levels.

5.15They pay attention to [“form” and so on] as

“impermanent”

because what has not come into being comes into being, and what has come into being becomes nonexistent. They are

“suffering”

because they have as their nature the three sufferings and because they become a cause for the suffering of others. They are

“selfless”

because, since they are without any agency and so on, they do not have their own defining mark. They are

“empty”

like the trunk of a plantain tree because they are hollow inside, and hence empty of an inner self. They are a

“disease”

because like a disease they require many conditions for a cure and are the root of physical and mental suffering. They are a

“boil”

because like a boil they oppress with obsession, drip with the pus of the afflictions, and gradually swell up, ripen, and burst with birth, old age, and death. They are a

“thorn”

because like a thorn they pierce with inner and outer trouble and are hard to treat. They are a

“misfortune”

because like the wicked they are to be criticized and they become oppressive. They are

“dependent”

because they labor in the face of conditions and they labor in the work of ‘making it mine,’ so they have no agency except from others. They are

“headed to destruction”

because

“by their nature”

they are thoroughly destroyed by sickness, old age, and death. They are

“shaky”

because they have the three marks of a compounded phenomenon and have the eight fickle worldly dharmas. [F.175.a] They are

“brittle”

because it is in their inner nature to be destroyed and because they are destroyed by something harming them. They are

“a hazard”

because “the absence of hazards” is peace, is pleasure, and is the antidote, and they are the cause of all fears. They are

“persecution”

because even when they are not felt, they persecute in various harmful ways. They are

“a headache”

because they hurt in many ways like a nagging demon and a headache.

5.31As for

“they should pay attention to cessations as selfless, calm,”

and so on, construe them as “selfless” because they are devoid of the mark of a self; “calm” because all suffering is calmed;

“isolated”

because they are without afflictions;

“emptiness”

because they are endowed with the emptiness of a self and what belongs to a self;

“signlessness”

because they are without all the causal signs of compounded phenomena;

“wishlessness”

because they do not wish for anything in the three realms; and a

“nonenactment”

because karma does not bring anything about later.

“Putting one part of the picture together with the other parts,”

and so on‍—“putting together” is paying attention to the thought of awakening, the thought of the wholesome root, and the thought of dedication touching each other. They

“analyze”

when they pay attention to all three not having the other’s intrinsic nature as its own intrinsic nature. They

“complete”

when they pay attention to the meaning that has already been explained that all three are “inconceivable because they are not thought, not thought because they are inconceivable.”

“This not settling down on… any one part, even while thus making an examination of all the parts of the picture”

is the

“extending”

completely. This is the fourth detailed and thorough analysis of all the dharmas as selfless.

“The bodhisattva great beings’ thought of the wholesome roots is not touched by the thought of awakening.”

What does this teach?

Earlier bodhisattvas, having made a dedication in general with conventional attention‍—”I dedicate these wholesome roots [F.175.b] to unsurpassed, perfect, complete awakening”‍—after having made an examination in the ultimate mode, since the thought of the wholesome root, the thought of awakening, and the thought of dedication do not touch each other, they examine whether, since they do not touch, dedication exists or not.

5.42Here some say the thoughts have not touched, but still a specific volitional factor produced through the force of an earlier thought, simultaneous with the later thought, does touch, so all the volitional factors become complete in the final thought of all. In this way, therefore, thoughts have touched.

5.43To eliminate that, it says

“the thought of the wholesome roots does not exist… in the thought of awakening,”

and so on. It means that thought is not in the other thought, by way of a volitional factor left as a residual impression and so on. It says this because having thus taught that the actual thought does not exist, there is no volitional factor left as a residual impression and so on, like an entity that is the sharpness or dullness of a rabbit’s horn.

5.44Having thus investigated and found that it does not exist in the intrinsic nature of the others, they also investigate and find that it does not exist in its own intrinsic nature:

“the thought of the wholesome roots does not exist in the thought of the wholesome roots, the thought of awakening does not exist in the thought of awakening,”

and so on. This is because when it is seen as just suchness there is no such investigation.

“Kauśika, the thought of the wholesome roots is no thought,”

and so on, teaches that it is just mere suchness. From the perspective of its own true dharmic nature, thought is free from falsely imagined thought so the intrinsic nature that is the nonexistence of thought comes to be known as the true dharmic nature of thought.

“A nonexistent thought does not touch a nonexistent thought,”

and so on. This is teaching that other than what comes to be known as the true dharmic nature of thought, no touching or existing or dedication comes to be known in any way at all. At that time [F.176.a] it is a self-reflexive analytic knowledge beyond the path of the conceivable, hence it is

“inconceivable”

and is

“no thought.”

“Kauśika, this is the bodhisattva great beings’ perfection of wisdom”

means it is nonconceptual wisdom that has gone to the other side.

5.48Thus, conventionally they are “analytically investigating all phenomena,” but ultimately “not settling down on and not apprehending any phenomenon.”

5.49What does

“I have to feel a sense of appreciation, Lord, and not feel no sense of appreciation”

teach? It teaches that earlier when our Lord was in the form of a bodhisattva, the great śrāvakas in the retinue of earlier tathāgatas taught him with advice and instruction, inspiring him to take it up, and inspiring him to perfectly practice what he had found. Having gradually accomplished their teaching he became completely awakened. Therefore, they too, by advising and instructing these bodhisattvas in this retinue, will establish them in perfect practice. When they have gradually accomplished that earlier teaching, they will become completely awakened. Therefore, I should show appreciation to the earlier śrāvakas.

5.50What is the difference between the words

“advised and instructed”

and so on? Here there are the three periods: starting, middle, and end. At the start they have to be “advised and instructed.” In the middle there is practice, and at the end the result.

5.51There during the starting period “advice” is saying, “Do not do this,” preventing them from doing what they should not do. “Instruction” is saying, “Do this,” connecting them with the activities.

5.52In the middle there are four periods: not practicing, practicing incorrectly, practicing a bit, and practicing perfectly.

5.53There, those who do not practice out of ignorance are inspired to practice [F.176.b] when they are

“taught.”

5.54Those who have set out incorrectly because of incorrect knowledge are connected with a perfect practice when they are

“made to take them up.”

5.55Those who, because of the fault of laziness and so on, practice a bit, become inspired to try to persevere when they are

“made… excited.”

5.56Having rejoiced, saying “excellent” to those who have set out perfectly with wisdom, they are connected with true reality when they are

“motivated.”

5.57At the end, they are

“caused… to enter into… and established”

in the result. Construe them like that.

How should bodhisattva great beings stand in the perfection of wisdom?

5.58After that, in reference to the question, ‘How should they stand?’ it teaches that they should forsake where

“they should not stand,”

and, standing where they should stand, they

“should stand in the perfection of wisdom.”

“Form is empty of form,”

and so on, teaches that the realization of emptiness is where they stand.

“By way of apprehending something”

is where they should not stand. Therefore, this teaches that because these falsely imagined phenomena, form and so on, do not exist through the intrinsic nature of form and so on, bodhisattvas also do not exist through the intrinsic nature of a bodhisattva, and their emptinesses are not different, they are one. Therefore, form and so on in its true dharmic nature is a thoroughly established phenomenon, and a bodhisattva furthermore is

“not two,”

so to stand in their same true dharmic nature is to stand in the perfection of wisdom.

5.61In the section of the text explaining where not to stand, furthermore, the teaching is in three parts. First they should not stand in the dharmas; second they should not stand in the true nature of dharmas; and third they should not stand as persons.

5.62There, the section on the dharmas is again a teaching in two parts: teaching the dharmas and teaching the mark of the dharma. From,

“they should not stand in form by way of apprehending something,”

up to

“they should not stand in buddhahood by way of apprehending something,”

is teaching the dharmas. [F.177.a] From

“Kauśika, they thus should not dwell on the idea of form by way of apprehending something, up to… they thus should not dwell on the idea of buddhahood by way of apprehending something”

is teaching the mark of the true nature of dharmas.

5.63The section on the true nature of dharmas is again a teaching in three parts: teaching the true nature of dharmas on the side of all-knowing, teaching the true nature of dharmas on the side of the knowledge of path aspects, and teaching the true nature of dharmas on the side of the knowledge of all aspects.

5.64Teaching the true nature of dharmas on the side of all-knowing is from

“they should not dwell on the idea that form is permanent… they should not dwell on the idea that form is impermanent,”

up to

“they should not dwell on the idea that the tathāgata, worthy one, perfectly complete buddha is worthy of gifts by way of apprehending something.”

5.65Teaching the true nature of dharmas on the side of the knowledge of path aspects is from they

“should not stand on the first level… up to the tenth level,”

up to they

“should not dwell on the idea ‘I will establish infinite, countless beings beyond measure in unsurpassed, perfect, complete awakening’ by way of apprehending something.”

5.66Teaching the true nature of dharmas on the side of the knowledge of all aspects starts from

“ ‘I will make the five eyes perfect,’ ”

up to

“they should not dwell on the idea ‘I will make the eighty minor signs perfect on the body.’ ”

5.67Again, construe the section teaching persons in three parts, based on the all-knowledge side and so on. The dharmas where it says,

“I will, standing on the four legs of miraculous power, become completely absorbed in meditative stabilization,”

and so on, are on the side of the level of the knowledge of all aspects.

5.68What is the elder Śāriputra thinking where it says,

“Then it occurred to [him] to think, ‘Well then, however could bodhisattva great beings stand in the perfection of wisdom?’ ” [F.177.b]

He was thinking that it has said “they should not stand in all dharmas,” and that it has said it is not possible to stand in emptiness, hence “they should not stand” in it either. How could that be right?

5.69Then the elder Subhūti establishes that they do not stand. The teaching that that is standing in the perfection of wisdom is

“the tathāgatas have totally nonabiding minds.”

It is teaching that they stand in nonabiding nirvāṇa.

5.70It has explained the achievement, standing without standing like that, and in the explanation based on those to be trained has said it is inexpressible. So those to be trained come to harbor doubts. Therefore, taking them as its point of departure, it sets the scene for another explanation with,

“O gods, is what is said incomprehensible?”

and so on, asking the gods the question, “Why have you not understood what has been said?” They then reply,

“Incomprehensible, Ārya Subhūti!”

5.71Then, because the perfection of wisdom is inexpressible, the elder says

“not even one syllable is said here,”

teaching that since this is the case, the apparent talking and apparent hearing are falsely imagined phenomena, like a

“magical creation… a dream… an echo… and a magical illusion,”

thus making the gods happy.

“A magically created buddha”

is a magically created body of a tathāgata.

“O gods, form is not deep and is not subtle.”

Because a falsely imagined form is a not real form, it “is not deep and is not subtle.” Again,

“it is because the intrinsic nature of form is not deep and is not subtle,”

and so on, teaches that because the true dharmic nature of form does not, in its intrinsic nature, move, it “is not deep and is not subtle.” So here the section of the text is in two parts: the dharma section and the intrinsic nature section.

“Well then, in this Dharma teaching has nothing been designated form?”

and so on. [F.178.a] The gods ask: if all dharmas are inexpressible, well then, is nothing “designated” or explained as “form”? Then the elder Subhūti says,

“Exactly so, gods, exactly so,”

teaching that they are indeed not designated and not explained.

5.75They

“cannot, without having resorted to this forbearance,”

which is to say, to this explanation of the inexpressible.

“[Then it occurred to those gods to] think, ‘What would the elder Subhūti accept those listening to the Dharma to be like?’ ”

This is teaching that if they are ultimately inexpressible there will be no speaker and no hearer, so there will be no listening to the Dharma.

“Gods, I would accept those listening to the Dharma to be like illusory beings,”

and so on, teaches that ultimately a speaker and a hearer are nonexistent.

“Venerable monk Subhūti, who will be the recipients of this perfection of wisdom so deep, so hard to behold,”

and so on‍—it is “deep” because it is hard to fathom; “hard to behold” because it is not an object of the five collections of consciousnesses;

“hard to understand”

because it is not an object of thinking-mind consciousness;

“peaceful”

because all the afflictions and secondary afflictions have calmed down;

“sublime”

because up to “all suffering” has calmed down;

“subtle”

because all conceptual thought constructions have calmed down;

“private”

because it is self-reflexive analytic knowledge;

“not an object of speculative thought”

because it transcends the path of thinking;

“brilliant”

because it is the cause for brilliance in the realization of all dharmas as they really are;

“absolutely noble”

because it is the supreme place for the realization of extraordinary dharmas; and

“an object to be known by the learned and wise”

because it is not an object within the range of śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas, and it is not an object to be known by the irreversible bodhisattvas. [F.178.b]

5.88They

“will be the recipients”‍—

they will be those who take it up. With

“persons who have seen the truths, or worthy ones with outflows dried up,”

and so on, it first teaches those who are seeking conventionally. There, in the ultimate sense, bodhisattvas are spoken of as those “who have seen the truths”; when they are awakened, they are called “worthy ones.” Having taught them conventionally, those being taught ultimately are from

“they will not construct the idea that form is empty,”

up to

“so too no being at all will be the recipient of it.”

5.89This teaches that just those who have directly realized the nonconceptual perfection of wisdom are those who are seeking. Ultimately there is nothing they will have sought for, so they are not those who are seeking.

5.90Then venerable Śāriputra says the assertion that a talker and a hearer are nonexistent contradicts scripture:

“Venerable Subhūti, is it not the case that in this perfection of wisdom the three vehicles… are taught in detail?”

and so on. The explanation of the three vehicles; and the teaching about

“the ten levels… the assistance,”

and

“the bodhisattva path”

of the perfections and so on; and about these dharmas: birth in the family of a tathāgata, sporting with

“the clairvoyances,”

hearing, not forgetting, being without distraction, and the sevenfold

“confident readiness,”

and so on‍—he is saying ‘We ourselves have heard about these.’

5.91After that, the elder Subhūti, to teach that the explanation of these dharmas is by way of not apprehending anything, to teach they do not exist ultimately and hence that even talking is mere illusion, says,

“Exactly so, Venerable Śāriputra, exactly so,”

and so on. About the reason they are empty, it says

“because of inner emptiness,”

up to

“because of the emptiness that is the nonexistence of an intrinsic nature,”

and so on. [F.179.a]

5.92It says the gods worship with flowers to teach the gods the sign of the emergence of the light of transcendental knowledge. This is in order to set the scene for the thought that comes next,

“these flowers have been magically created,”

and so on.

“Kauśika… these flowers have not come about”

is saying that they are not marked as thoroughly established, that they have emptiness as their intrinsic nature, and are not flowers as their intrinsic nature.

“Kauśika, form also has not come about, and what has not come about is not form.”

It says “form also has not come about” because an ultimate form does not have the production of a compounded form. Thus, it says “what has not come about is not form” because an uncompounded phenomenon that has not come about does not have the mark of a falsely imagined form.

“Does not contradict designation and gives instruction in the true nature of dharmas”

means he gives instruction without contradicting the ultimate or the conventional.

[B18]

How should bodhisattva great beings train in the perfection of wisdom?

“Kauśika, bodhisattva great beings, having thus understood how all dharmas are mere designations, should train in the perfection of wisdom.”

This indicates the last of the three earlier questions, “How should a bodhisattva great being train in the perfection of wisdom?”

“Do not train in form,”

and so on‍—this is saying they train without training, just as, to illustrate, they stand without standing.

5.98In order to teach that “they do not train in form and so on because they see that form and so on are nonexistent things,” it says

“because they do not see the form in which they train,”

and so on.

“Śatakratu… inquired… why do bodhisattva great beings not see form,”

and so on, and to teach that “they do not see form because it is empty,” it says

“form is empty of form.” [F.179.b]

5.100It says,

“Kauśika, it is because the emptiness of form does not train in the emptiness of form,”

and so on, as the reason they do not train. It means both a training and something that is trained in are nonexistent, so they do not train.

5.101Then,

“Kauśika, those who do not train in the emptiness of form… up to those who do not train in the emptiness of the knowledge of all aspects, train in the emptiness of form without making a division into two, up to train in the emptiness of the knowledge of all aspects without making a division into two,”

says that just those who do not train are the ones who train. “Without making a division into two” means they are the same as emptiness, so, when they have trained in the emptiness of a single dharma, they have trained in the emptiness of all. Hence it is explaining that the emptiness of a single dharma is the emptiness of all.

5.102Then it says,

“Those who train in the emptiness of form without making a division into two, up to train in the knowledge of all aspects without making a division into two… train in countless, infinite buddhadharmas.”

This is teaching that those who thus train in the emptiness of all dharmas train in the six perfections and so on, up to train in all the buddhadharmas.

5.103Then,

“do not train in order to increase or decrease form,”

teaches that training in the perfections and so on, up to the buddhadharmas, is not to increase or decrease form and so on. It means that training is not to increase the bright side or decrease the dark side.

5.104Then,

“[do] not train in order to get hold of or get rid of form”

is teaching that where there are thus no dharmas to be increased or decreased, there are no special dharmas to be gotten hold of [F.180.a] and no bad dharmas to be reduced.

5.105It says that, and then with

“Venerable Subhūti, why do bodhisattva great beings not train in order to get hold of or get rid of form?”

the elder Śāriputra asks him why, given that bodhisattvas eliminate bad dharmas and obtain special dharmas, there is nothing for them to get hold of or get rid of. After he asks that, the elder Subhūti says

“form does not get hold of form,”

teaching that there are no grasped and grasper. It gives as the reason for that,

“based on… emptiness.”

“Does not see the production… of form,”

and so on‍—something plucked out of thin air has no “production.” Something lasting in its nature does not change so there is no

“stopping.”

5.107In suchness there is no production so there is no

“acceptance”

of something not there before. There is no stopping so there is no

“rejection”

of something gotten hold of. There is nothing to get hold of so there is no

“purification”

of something not there before. There is nothing to reject so there is no

“defilement”

to eliminate. Since there is no purification there is no

“increase,”

and since there is no defilement there is no

“decrease.”

“Venerable monk… where should you look for the perfection of wisdom?”

He asks about the perfection of wisdom to teach, in regard to the perfection of wisdom itself, the knowledge of path aspects and the knowledge of all aspects.

“In Subhūti’s chapter”‍—

“Subhūti’s chapter” is all of the intermediate exegesis of the perfection of wisdom. This is saying that the knowledge of all aspects has originated based on the perfection of wisdom, so you should grasp the explanation of it also from there.

The sustaining power of the tathāgata

5.110Given that the exegesis of the deep dharmas is within the range of a tathāgata, the chief of the gods does not accept that it is Subhūti’s explanation, so, setting the scene for the noble Subhūti to have given such an exegesis, [F.180.b] he asks,

“Is it through your noble might, is it through your sustaining power…?”

5.111First the elder Subhūti, in conventional mode, teaches that these are

“the Tathāgata’s sustaining power,”

that is, worthy ones give explanations of doctrine through the Tathāgata’s sustaining power. Then the chief of the gods, not accepting that either, says

“Venerable monk Subhūti, given that all dharmas are without anything that sustains them, why do you say ‘this is the Tathāgata’s sustaining power, it is the Tathāgata’s might’?”

5.112Then the elder, having rejoiced in that statement, to teach that in ultimate mode the tathāgata is to be taken as tathatā , with

“the tathāgata cannot be apprehended in the true nature of dharmas that is without anything that sustains it,”

and so on, teaches that there is no dharma called tathāgata at all. There are no false imagined dharmas in the true nature of dharmas, so “in” that “true dharmic nature” of all dharmas “without anything that sustains it” there is no “tathāgata.” And because there are no dharmas unincluded in the true nature of dharmas,

“nor can the tathāgata be apprehended elsewhere than the true nature of dharmas that is without anything that sustains it.”

5.113Because the true nature of dharmas does not abide in falsely imagined phenomena,

“the true nature of dharmas that is without anything that sustains it cannot be apprehended in the tathāgata.”

5.114And because there is no true nature of dharmas elsewhere than dharmas,

“nor can the true nature of dharmas that is without anything that sustains it be apprehended elsewhere than the tathāgata.”

5.115Construe the

“suchness”

section like this, and construe the

“true dharmic nature”

and

“suchness”

of

“form,”

and so on, ending with

“the knowledge of all aspects”

section like this as well.

“The true dharmic nature of the tathāgata is not conjoined with or disjoined from the true dharmic nature of form. … It is not conjoined with or disjoined from something other than the true dharmic nature of form.”

5.117It says so because they are not different, [F.181.a] they are the same. The alternatives when a basis is conjoined with something on a basis or with something else, or disjoined from them, are that they are acceptable if they are different and not acceptable if they are not. Construe

“thus, Kauśika, not being conjoined with and not being disjoined from all dharmas‍—this is its might, this is its sustaining power,”

in the suchness section, in the same way. It is the “might” of emptiness, the “sustaining power” of emptiness, in the sense that the explanation has come about taking emptiness as the point of departure.

“They also should not look for it in form”‍—

it says this because form and so on do not exist‍—

“and they should not look for it elsewhere than form.”

5.119It says this because the perfection of wisdom is something that does not exist, so it is not something else either. Therefore, it is teaching that because something does not exist it is not something else. It says

“all dharmas… are not conjoined, are not disjoined… and have… no mark.”

“Form is not the perfection of wisdom”

teaches that both form and the perfection of wisdom are things that do not exist;

“and there is no perfection of wisdom other than form”

means you cannot say it is different, because it is something that does not exist. And so it says,

“Kauśika, it is because all these dharmas do not exist and cannot be apprehended.”

The perfection of wisdom is great, immeasurable, infinite, and limitless

5.121Then Śatakratu, to teach again that this exposition of the doctrine should be taken to be amazing, makes a fourfold statement that

“The perfection of wisdom… is great… the perfection of wisdom… is immeasurable… the perfection of wisdom… is infinite… [and] the perfection of wisdom… is limitless.”

5.122Connect

“you cannot apprehend a prior limit of form”

with you cannot apprehend at that time “it was there” or “was not there”; [F.181.b]

“you cannot apprehend a later limit”

with at that time “it will be there” or “will not be there”; and

“you cannot apprehend a middle”

with “it is there” or “is not there.” Thus, it is “great” because it is not divided into three time periods.

“You cannot apprehend a measure of form”‍—

ultimate form is “immeasurable” because you cannot delineate it as “just this much.” It is

“infinite”

because it cannot be given a size by counting. It is

“limitless”

because there is no termination of instants. The “prior limit” is production, the “later limit” is cessation, and the “middle” is lasting for an instant.

5.124Having thus at first taught that the perfections are unlimited, it then teaches the unlimited in four parts: the unlimited knowledge of all aspects, the unlimited body of dharmas, unlimited suchness, and unlimited beings.

5.125Among these, what are “unlimited beings”? Their “limits” are the two extremes: the permanent extreme and the annihilation extreme. The nonexistence of those extremes is the state where the extremes are absent, so beings are “unlimited.” Suppose beings existed. In that case they would have limits. But since beings are in their intrinsic nature just nonexistent, unlimited beings with an intrinsic nature do not exist. Suppose a certain being is taught in this explanation of the doctrine. In that case unlimited beings would also be taught. But since it does not teach a being, there are no unlimited beings here either. Therefore, it says,

“Kauśika, where there has been no explanation of anything as a being there will also be no limitlessness of a being.” [F.182.a]

5.126This means that because it does not teach a being it therefore also does not teach that beings are unlimited.

5.127Then,

“Kauśika, if a tathāgata, worthy one, perfectly complete buddha remaining for as many eons as there are sand particles in the Gaṅgā River were to say the word being again and again,”

and so on, teaches that a statement from the mouth does not make beings unlimited. They are unlimited in their intrinsic nature because they are nonexistent. Suppose beings were made unlimited as a statement in the mouth, that from what the Tathāgata says beings might be born or cease. It means because that is not the case, beings are not unlimited because it has been said they are.

“Kauśika, from this one of many explanations you should know this perfection of wisdom is unlimited because beings are unlimited.”

This means suppose a being is taught in this explanation, so it exists in reality. Then the two extremes would also exist. But those two are not taught so this perfection is limitless. Because a being is not taught, therefore a being does not exist. Because it does not exist the two extremes do not exist either. Therefore, because it does not teach a being this perfection is unlimited.

“Without apprehending any dharma… still they make known the presentation of the three vehicles”‍—

ultimately and conventionally.

“But without apprehending the tathāgata as other than the perfection of giving”‍—

this means the dharma body’s tathāgata is the intrinsic nature of the buddhadharmas. When bodhisattvas train in that, because it is ultimately the intrinsic nature of the buddhadharmas there is also no difference between bodhisattvas and tathāgatas so

“you… should therefore call them… just tathāgatas.” [F.182.b]

5.131Since bodhisattvas newly practicing the buddhadharmas are the intrinsic nature of the buddhadharmas, because he would teach,

“the tathāgata… Dīpaṅkara,”

having seen that he was inseparable from the buddhadharmas, prophesied he would be a tathāgata. Thus it gives the example of Dīpaṅkara.

“Then those gods said to the Lord”‍—

because the Lord had obtained the prophesy from Dīpaṅkara‍—

“It is amazing, Lord, this perfection of wisdom of the bodhisattva great beings, through not appropriating and rejecting form,”

up to

“is favorable to getting hold of the knowledge of all aspects.”

5.133This means it is amazing that it assists a “knowledge of all aspects” not there before, even though the two, “getting hold of and rejecting,” do not exist, because a real superior or inferior thing in the dharmas, form and so on, does not exist.

Explanation of Chapters 24 to 33

Beneficial qualities

Then the Lord, knowing the four retinues of monks, nuns,

and so on, takes as its point of departure the Perfection of Wisdom that is being explained. It teaches the beneficial qualities that come about in this life and in later lives from this explanation of the Dharma that up to here has constituted the meaning, and that serves as the cause for an increase of much merit.

“Emptiness becomes a good sustainable position”

teaches just a concordant cause with emptiness as the sustainable position, which is to say, to them all ordinary things appear as empty, and the self, too, appears as empty.

5.136Here it teaches why

“emptiness finds no way to infiltrate emptiness.”

5.137That

“with which they might infiltrate”

is wicked action. A level or a place of the gods is

“where infiltration might take place.”

5.138That

“into which infiltration might take place”

is a bodhisattva. It is because they are all nonexistent. I will not spell it out [F.183.a] here because the scripture is easy to interpret.

“Guarding, protection, and safekeeping”‍—

“guarding” is establishing all physical well-being; “protection” is defending against all external dangers; and “safekeeping” is stopping internal sickness and so on.

5.140Here, furthermore, it teaches four benefits: not being infiltrated, not dying an untimely death, not getting scared and so on, and being protected by the gods.

5.141Teaching by analogy, with

“to illustrate, … if this… were filled with śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas like a thicket of sugarcane,”

and so on, it teaches the greater value.

5.142This teaches the benefits in this life and the many benefits in future lives. There are the ten,

“a perfect family”

and so on; they

“magically produce themselves”

and teach the doctrine; they

“have taken possession of… all the buddhadharmas”;

calm those who fight and contradict them and so on; the causes of those; perfectly gaining the six perfections; the absence of being disturbed and so on; the analogy of medicine; stopping all nonbright dharmas; protecting and increasing

“wholesome dharmas”;

“polite speech”

and so on; promotion of the ten wholesome actions; promotion of all the buddhadharmas; and

“training perfectly”

in each of the six perfections.

“Has been made available in order to tame… and in order to lessen their conceit”‍—

it is “made available” to

“bodhisattvas… practicing the ordinary”

practices to fully guide them in the pursuit of the career, and it is also “made available” in order to lessen their conceit when

“without skillful means”

they are conceited. When they pursue the career

“without apprehending”

anything and this perfection of wisdom is completely guiding them, it has been made available in order to fully guide them, and been made available in order to lessen their conceit because they do not become conceited. [F.183.b]

Merits

5.144Then it teaches that it protects from weapons in a battle and the reasons for that; that it protects from external harms and the reasons for that; and that it does not present an opportunity for infiltration. It teaches with the example of the site of awakening; and with

“having borne respectfully in mind this perfection of wisdom written out in book form”

it teaches the qualities of the perfection of wisdom as a collection of statements and collection of letters. It teaches that places come to serve as caityas because of the perfection of wisdom, and it teaches that the worship there of the perfection of wisdom is superior to worship of a caitya filled with the physical remains of a tathāgata and the reasons for that; that there are more beings who are lacking and many fewer who are good and the reasons for that; that in the ten directions there are more beings in the deficient vehicle and the reasons for that; that it is necessary to engage constantly in listening to this explanation and so on; that worshiping it is superior to worshiping

“a stūpa be made of the seven precious things”;

that there is more merit from that than from worshiping just a

“Jambudvīpa,”

just a

“millionfold world system,”

or just a

“billionfold world system”

full of stūpas; and that there is more merit from worshiping the perfection of wisdom than all beings in all world systems worshiping that many stūpas. Similarly, it teaches there is more merit from worshiping it than if

“each single being of the beings in as many world systems as there are sand particles in the Gaṅgā River in each of the ten directions”

were to have made a stūpa of the seven precious things and worshiped it, and the reasons for that. It teaches that when the perfection of wisdom is present in the world the cause of the special ordinary and extraordinary good qualities comes about; the entrusting to Śatakratu; and the benefits conveyed using the analogy of the gods and asuras when they

“engage… in battle”

and so on. It gives it the names

“a great knowledge-mantra… an unsurpassable knowledge-mantra… a knowledge-mantra equal to the unequaled,”

and teaches the reasons for those. It is “a great knowledge-mantra” because it has all ordinary and extraordinary attributes and hence is exceedingly great; it is “an unsurpassable knowledge-mantra” [F.184.a] because there is no other above it; and it is “a knowledge-mantra equal to the unequaled” because there is none equal to it. By giving the illustration of

“the disk of the moon”

it teaches that it serves as the cause of all bright dharmas issuing forth, and it serves as the cause of skillful means. It also teaches

“these good qualities in this very life… poisoning will not cause the time of their death… or fire, weapons, or water… up to sickness”;

and they are not persecuted by retainers of

“a royal family.”

5.149It teaches the benefits of these good qualities: they will not be separated from all the bright dharmas; they will not be

“born in the hells, the animal world,”

or as ghosts; they will not

“have incomplete faculties… missing limbs… [or] be born in”

a low caste; they will have

“a body adorned with the marks”

and signs; and they will take birth in a buddhafield,

“pass on… to buddhafields… [and] bring beings to maturity and purify a buddhafield,”

and so on.

5.150Then it teaches

“religious mendicants… a hundred of them… went back,”

and the reasons for that, and that

“Māra… turned back”;

that all the gods offer worship and praise, and make the commitment to

“guard and protect”;

and that those who take it up will become endowed with the finest wholesome roots. In this context, what emerges from the perfection of wisdom is the knowledge of all aspects.

“Issues forth from… the knowledge of all aspects”

and

“the perfection of wisdom”

teaches that they are different conventionally, and

“the knowledge of all aspects is not one thing and the perfection of wisdom another”

teaches that they are not different ultimately.

“The knowledge of all aspects issues forth from the perfection of wisdom”

is the practice level;

“the perfection of wisdom issues forth from the knowledge of all aspects” [F.184.b]

is the result level.

“The knowledge of all aspects is not one thing and the perfection of wisdom another”

because both constitute the dharma body.

5.154After that Ānanda speaks, and then, from

“all the buddhadharmas are preceded by the perfection of wisdom,”

up to

“Ānanda, … have been dedicated to the knowledge of all aspects in a nondual way,”

it says that when giving has been dedicated to the knowledge of all aspects, at that time, having understood analytically that the perfection of giving and the knowledge of all aspects are not different and not two at the result level, when engaging in giving it

“gets the name ‘perfection of giving.’ ”

“Ānanda, by way of the nonduality of form, in a nonappropriating way, in a nonapprehending way”‍—

the true dharmic nature of form is “by way of the nonduality of form”; falsely imagined form is “by way of nonapprehending”; and conceptualized form is “by way of nonappropriating.” In

“that which is nondual cannot be apprehended,”

the nondual is the thoroughly established phenomenon. It is not settled down on as something apprehended and falsely imagined.

“That which cannot be apprehended is not appropriated”

means that the absence of settling down by way of apprehending is not appropriated by the conceptualization that pays attention to it.

5.157Then again it teaches infinite good qualities of the perfection of wisdom: that it serves as the cause of

“an immeasurable… morality”

and so on, and surpasses the

“morality… of śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas”

and so on. It teaches Śatakratu’s commitment to

“guard, protect, and keep safe”;

the gods connecting with confidence giving a readiness to speak; not being cowed in front of retinues; [F.185.a] not fault-finding; not feeling cowed and so on; being liked by the whole world; the seamless true nature of dharmas; all the gods taking up the perfection of wisdom; the offering of a gift of Dharma to them; the gods guarding; the sign

“the gods have come”;

the inferior gods withdrawing; belief in the vast; worship of the place; feeling a sense of physical pleasure and so on; having no weariness and so on; having good dreams;

bodies being infused with energy;

not being greedy for the four requirements; worshiping all the buddhas in world systems all around in the ten directions with the four requirements; there being more merit merely from having respected this perfection of wisdom, even if it has not been taken up and so on, than from having stūpas made of the seven various precious stones and worshiping them; and there being more merit from taking up the perfection of wisdom than were

“Śatakratu, head of the gods”

to have

“filled this Jambudvīpa right to the top with the physical remains of the tathāgatas,”

and the reasons for that.

5.161In this context,

“Kauśika, the perfection of wisdom cannot be apprehended”

because it “cannot be apprehended” with thinking-mind consciousness. It

“cannot be pointed out”

because it “cannot be pointed out” with words. It

“does not obstruct”

because, since it is not an object of sense consciousness, it “does not obstruct” as an object does. It

“has only one mark‍—that is, no mark”

because it is separated from all imaginary marks.

“It is not a place to be seized or not seized”

because it is not suitable to be conceptualized as something that can be seized or something that cannot be seized;

“to be increased or reduced”

because it is not a place for the elimination of things on the dark side or [F.185.b] the increase of things on the bright side; or

“to be taken away from or added to”

because it is not a place for the removal of saṃsāric dharmas or the accomplishment of nirvāṇic dharmas. And why? Because it is without all attachments to such conceptualizations. You should connect it in the same way with them all.

“A dual perfection of wisdom is not available”

means were the perfection of wisdom to be a mode of seizing and not seizing and so on, it would be in a dual state and would be available with a diverse nature, but it is ultimately one, not broken apart, so ultimately such a proliferation of activity is absent from it.

“Similarly, a perfection of giving, a perfection of morality,”

and so on, in the ultimate state are essentially one, and hence

“are not two,”

because they are not broken apart. Therefore, it says,

“Kauśika… is simply to accept suchness as two,”

and so on. All those perfections of wisdom and so on are one in the form of suchness; they are not there as a duality.

5.165It gives the illustration of [the throne]

“in the Sudharmā assembly of gods”

and teaches that the physical remains of all the tathāgatas have come about from this perfection of wisdom.

“The perfection of wisdom has no causal sign”

because it

“has no token, is inexpressible,”

and so on, and is therefore separated from all thought constructions. It “has no token” because it is separated from its own defining mark. It “is inexpressible” because it is not within the range of words. It

“cannot be talked about”

because it is not in the form of language. It

“is inconceivable”

because it is self-reflexive analytic knowledge.

5.167After that it teaches that there will be none of the bad forms of life or lesser vehicle aspirations and so on; that there is more merit from taking up this perfection of wisdom than from

“this billionfold world system filled right to the top with the physical remains [F.186.a] of tathāgatas,”

and the reasons for that; that

“the tathāgata and the perfection of wisdom are not two”;

that for all the buddhas in the ten directions to teach the twelvefold doctrine and to read the perfection of wisdom out loud

“is equivalent”;

and that worshiping all the tathāgatas of the ten directions and worshiping the perfection of wisdom

“is equivalent.”

5.168It teaches that those who have taken up the perfection of wisdom and so on stand on the irreversible level; the analogy of

“a person fearful of rich creditors”;

that they reach the true nature of dharmas‍—

“complete nirvāṇa”;

the analogy of

“the large jewel”;

again, that there is more merit from taking up this perfection of wisdom than from

“as many… world systems as there are sand particles in the Gaṅgā River filled right to the top with the physical remains of tathāgatas,”

and the reason for that; and seeing

“the dharma body, the form body, and the knowledge body.”

The “knowledge body” is the knowledge accumulation.

“What the dharmas actually are when compounded”‍—

they have transcendental knowledge with conceptualization as their intrinsic nature.

“What dharmas actually are when they are uncompounded”‍—

the intrinsic nature that is the inexpressible, the ultimate is what dharmas actually are when they are uncompounded.

“Gives detailed instruction for the three vehicles, and instruction by way of no causal sign, by way of no production, by way of no stopping,”

and so on‍—it says this intending the nirvāṇa of śrāvakas at the result stage.

5.172Ultimately, the perfection of wisdom

“is not over there or over here, or has stayed up or sunk down,”

and so on. It explains it like this because, again, at the thoroughly established stage such conceptualizations and causal signs do not exist.

“Replied Śatakratu, “This‍—that is, the perfection of wisdom‍—is a great perfection.”

He says this having thought about [F.186.b] the intrinsic nature of the wisdom that is perfect. The attention that does not apprehend any dharma does not see it, so it is like space because it is a greater object.

5.174As for the analogy of the trees, the perfection of wisdom is like the trees; those other than it are like the shadows.

It teaches that giving to others has a greater result than personal worship.

“Shatters the vajra-like body and imbues the physical remains of the tathāgata with a special power”‍—

this teaches that what has been shared has a greater result.

“Who goes to others and explicates”

is teaching the activity of teaching.

“ ‘What should I rely on and stay by, whom should I respect, revere, honor, and worship?’ ”

is teaching that if even the Tathāgata worshiped this perfection of wisdom, it goes without saying those others than him should. The section of the passage that says,

“Kauśika, those sons of a good family or daughters of a good family who have entered into the Śrāvaka Vehicle or who have entered into the Pratyekabuddha Vehicle,”

is teaching that the perfection of wisdom is the principal cause and therefore should be worshiped.

5.178Then there is a section teaching that the result of merit is greater

“from establishing one being in the result of stream enterer, but not so much from establishing the beings in Jambudvīpa in the ten wholesome actions.”

5.179Then, having taught the increase in merit in a further section, teaching that there is more merit from having

“written out this perfection of wisdom in book form and bestowed it”

than from, up to

“establishing all the beings in Jambudvīpa in the state of a worthy one and a pratyekabuddha’s awakening,”

and taught that the reason for that is that

“in this perfection of wisdom are taught the dharmas without outflows,”

it teaches that it serves as the cause for the appearance of all ordinary special beings and serves as the cause for the appearance of noble beings. Then there is the section about greater merit from having

“written out this perfection of wisdom in book form and bestowed it”

than from having established all the beings in this four continent world system… thousandfold… millionfold… [F.187.a] a great billionfold world system… or in world systems in the ten directions in the state of a worthy one and a pratyekabuddha’s awakening; the section on the reason for that‍—that in it are taught dharmas without outflows; the section teaching that it serves as the cause for the appearance of all ordinary special beings and serves as the cause for the appearance of noble beings; and then the teaching on the greater merit, and the teaching that properly paying attention is the main thing.

“There, properly paying attention is this: taking up… this perfection of wisdom with an understanding that operates without duality.”

This means that engaging “with an understanding” that habitually “operates without duality” is “properly paying attention.”

5.181Then there is the section on the great increase in merit and the teaching that meaning is principal.

“There the meaning of the perfection of wisdom is this:”

first,

“not viewing the perfection of wisdom as two and not viewing it as not two.”

5.183This means never mind a dualistic nature, there is not even the idea that because it is separated from the conceptualization of all dharmas the nature of the nonconceptual perfection of wisdom is nondual, so the perfection of wisdom is not viewed in a dual way and it is not viewed in a nondual way either. There,

“not viewing the perfection of wisdom as a causal sign or as not a causal sign,”

and so on, teaches the nonexistence of fourteen conceptualizations of fourteen states: being an objective support, the maturation of karma, being a differentiated object of knowledge, transformation of the basis, apprehension of the meaning of true reality, ascending from one level to another level, different levels, practice, paying attention, [F.187.b] elimination, realization, witnessing the true nature of dharmas, meditating on suchness, and nirvāṇa.

5.184There, it says “not as a causal sign and not as not a causal sign” because, when apprehending an objective support, it does not grasp the falsely imagined causal sign of form and so on, and the idea “there is no causal sign” does not occur. Similarly, it says not

“as brought in or as sent out,”

because it does not conceive of bringing something into existence at the time of the karmic action, and it does not conceive of being sent out in forms of life at the time of the maturation. Similarly, it says not

“as taken away or as added on,”

because, when differentiating dharmas as objects of knowledge, it does not take anything away by over-negating something that exists, and it does not add anything on by over-reifying something that does not exist. Similarly, it says not

“as defilement or as purification,”

because, when in the state of an ordinary person, the tathāgata­garbha is naturally pure, so there is no defilement, and even when there is a transformation of the basis there is no purification not already there before, like space. Similarly, it says not

“as a production or as a cessation,”

because no production or stopping is seen in the true nature of dharmas because all dharmas are not produced and do not stop. Similarly, it says not

“as grasped or as rejected,”

because, even when ascending from a lower level to a higher level, ultimately it does not grasp a special realization dharma at a higher level and does not reject an inferior realization dharma at a lower level. Similarly, it says not

“as stationed or as not stationed,”

because it does not conceive of having to be stationed on a higher level and it does not conceive of having to be not stationed on a lower level, [F.188.a] because both being stationed and not being stationed are simply just imaginary. Similarly, it says not

“as true or as mistaken,”

because when engaging in the practice of calm abiding and special insight the ideas “this is correct practice” and “this is not correct practice” do not occur. Similarly, it says not

“as right or as wrong,”

because, even when zealously paying attention to true reality correctly, the ideas “this attention is produced in the right way,” and “this is produced in the wrong way” do not occur. Similarly, it says not

“as tiny or as not tiny,”

because, even though, when eliminating the afflictive obscurations and the knowledge obscurations that are the final basis of suffering, the tiny conceptualization of afflictions is eliminated in stages, such an idea does not occur. Similarly, it says not

“as a part or as not a part,”

because, even when realizing the ultimate in the form of suchness in stages through parts‍—“in the omnipresent sense, the tip sense, the outflow sense, the neither defilement nor purification sense, the nothing is lacking and nothing added sense” and so on‍—such an idea does not occur. Similarly, it says not

“as a dharma or as not a dharma,”

because, even when making the true nature of dharmas manifest and bringing the true nature of dharmas to completion, if there is any idea of something in the form of a dharma or not a dharma the actual stable suchness is not appearing. Similarly, it says not

“as suchness or as not suchness,”

because even when meditating on suchness the ideas “this is suchness” and “this is something else” do not occur. And similarly, [F.188.b] it says not

“as the very limit of reality or as not the very limit of reality,”

because even when in nirvāṇa “this is the very limit of reality and this is its opposite” is not grasped.

5.198In regard to

“this is the meaning of nondual,”

it is explained that this “meaning” is counted in one way as what is to be explained and counted in another way as apprehending; and in regard to this “nondual,” that apprehending the meaning to be explained‍—the perfection of wisdom that has been explained‍—and the nonconceptual perfection of wisdom is apprehending the meaning of the perfection of wisdom.

5.199Then the section on

“in both the meaning and the letter”

teaches that the merit from explaining this is greater than the merit from personally taking it up.

5.200Then there is the section about the greater merit from explaining this than from having worshiped

“with all the requirements for happiness, all the buddhas in the ten directions”;

then the section on the merit from explaining this

“without apprehending anything”

being greater than the merit from practicing the six perfections

“for infinite, incalculable eons by way of apprehending something”;

and the section on the perfections while apprehending something.

5.201There are four sections on the

“counterfeit perfection of wisdom.”

5.202The first is the section teaching cultivation while apprehending something; the second is the section teaching the perfections with results; the third is the section about gaining

“immeasurable merit”;

and the fourth is the section teaching rejoicing and dedication.

5.203The sections teaching the perfectly pure perfection of wisdom are also two. The first is the section on the instruction that they should not apprehend anything; the second is the section on not having a view of any dharma and not resting on grasping a view as absolute. [F.189.a]

5.204Then there are six sections teaching that there is more merit from explaining it to others than the merit from establishing the beings in Jambudvīpa… in the four continents… in a thousandfold… a millionfold… a billionfold world system… or in world systems in the ten directions in the result of stream enterer; similarly, the six sections teach that there is more merit from explaining it to others than the merit from establishing beings

“in the result of once-returner,”

up to

“a pratyekabuddha’s awakening,”

based on the beings in Jambudvīpa, the four continents and so on; similarly, the six sections teach that there is more merit from explaining it to others than the merit from causing beings to take up

“unsurpassed, perfect, complete awakening”

based on the beings in Jambudvīpa, the four continents and so on; similarly, there are also the six sections about those established

“in the irreversible state”;

and then also the six sections teaching that there is more merit from explaining

“to one”

for the purpose of speedy clairvoyance than the merit from explaining to those who have been established in the irreversible state. There is then the section where Śatakratu teaches and the section where the elder Subhūti rejoices.

Those are the subsections of the exposition here.

Rejoicing and dedication

5.205Then also in this context of teaching that it is greater merit, having taught that merit from rejoicing is highest, to set the scene for the explanation it says,

“Then the bodhisattva Maitreya said to the… venerable monk Subhūti,”

and so on. The meaning is this:

“in comparison to the bases of meritorious action arisen from”

rejoicing in the giving, morality, and meditation of all beings, śrāvakas, and pratyekabuddhas, the single merit from rejoicing in and dedicating when it is a bodhisattva who has set out to pay attention to not apprehending anything is

“the highest.” [F.189.b]

5.206Then Maitreya gives the reason for that, saying,

“Because all the bases of meritorious action arisen from giving,”

and so on,

“of those… in the Śrāvaka Vehicle and those… in the Pratyekabuddha Vehicle are made”

available just

“for personal disciplining… a bodhisattva’s… is for disciplining all beings.”

5.207After he says that, the elder Subhūti takes it in his hands and says: If all the wholesome roots of all the buddhas in the ten directions, gathering a retinue of beings, bringing them to maturity, freeing them, and so on; the five aggregates; all the buddhadharmas; the collection of Dharma teachings; the dharma body that is reached; the wholesome roots of bodhisattvas; and perfect, complete awakening were apprehended and were to come into being, since the wholesome roots from the rejoicing of bodhisattvas has to do with an absence of

“entities and objective supports,”

they would be like the four errors. If anything like those “objective supports” and “entities” existed, in that case, all dharmas‍— form , feeling, and so on; the thought of awakening, the six perfections, the aggregates, the constituents, the sense bases, and so on; up to

“the eighteen distinct attributes of a buddha”‍—

would also exist like them. But if they, like those objective supports and like those entities, were to be nonexistent, in that case they would all be nonexistent. He is asking how, if that is the case, since the objective supports, entities, wholesome roots, rejoicing, and bases of meritorious action would be nonexistent, would dedication be achieved. He is saying that has to be explained.

“And if, just like it is with the entities and how it is with the objective supports too, awakening is like that; if thought is like that,”

means in that case, just as the entities and objective supports are nonexistent, the thought of awakening and so on would be nonexistent too. [F.190.a]

[B19]

5.209After he says that, the bodhisattva Maitreya says that there is no objection that they fashion causal signs and make the dedication if they are bodhisattvas who are characterized by having a mature knowledge of emptiness, but the objection is properly directed to those bodhisattvas who are immature, not well trained, and new. Those who have a knowledge of emptiness do not fashion causal signs and make the dedication.

“Venerable monk Subhūti, if those bodhisattva great beings again and again practice the six perfections,”

and so on, teaches that because they are new they do not have faults like the four errors.

5.211Then,

“Venerable monk Subhūti, you should not give an exposition of this doctrine… like this in the presence of bodhisattvas who have newly set out in the vehicle,”

and so on, teaches that new bodhisattvas are not receptacles for the explanation of this emptiness. If it is explained to them, because they have a

“smidgeon of faith,”

and so on, it teaches that there is the fault that what they have gotten will be spoiled and what they have not gotten will be spoiled too.

“The explanation… has to be given in the presence of bodhisattvas irreversible…”‍—

it is not wrong when it is explained to those who are mature.

5.213Then,

“they will be, venerable monk Subhūti, those whose bases of meritorious action arisen from rejoicing will be dedicated in that way to unsurpassed, perfect, complete awakening,”

and so on, teaches the ultimate dedication.

5.214Fashioning causal signs and making the dedication is illogical in four ways:

there is no connection between the two‍—the rejoicing thought and the dedicating thought; there is no connection between apprehending the basis, the wholesome root, and the basis of the meritorious action; there is no connection between the two‍—[F.190.b] the dedication and to what the dedication is being made; and there is no dedication.

“The thought that does the rejoicing and dedication”

of the wholesome roots to unsurpassed, perfect, complete awakening

“is a thought that is extinguished, stopped, nonexistent, and has run out”

teaches that there is no connection between the two thoughts.

“And those entities and those objective supports, those wholesome roots, and those bases of meritorious action arisen from rejoicing are extinguished, stopped, nonexistent, and have run out,”

and so on, teaches that there are no “entities” and so on.

“Does thought dedicate thought? If thought were to dedicate thought, there would be no coming together of two thoughts”

teaches that there is no connection between the two‍—the dedication and to what the dedication is being made.

“The intrinsic nature of thought cannot be dedicated”

teaches that there is no thought making the dedication. It teaches that thought is a construction because of the nonexistence of its intrinsic nature, and nonexistence cannot make a dedication.

“When bodhisattva great beings practicing the perfection of wisdom thus know the perfection of wisdom is a nonexistent thing,”

and so on, teaches that it is characterized as a nonexistent thing.

“The bodhisattva Maitreya then asked the elder Subhūti, “Venerable monk Subhūti, when bodhisattva great beings who have newly set out in the vehicle,”

and so on. He is asking what the rejoicing and dedication of those who have newly set out are. And with

“when bodhisattvas… who have newly set out in the vehicle,”

and so on, Subhūti teaches Maitreya that they have to do it based on training

“by way of not apprehending anything.”

“And, having heard about those works of Māra from them, no decrease happens and no increase happens,” [F.191.a]

because of the absence of constructing those in thought.

“Grasp the bodhisattva lineage”‍—

pay attention to suchness.

5.222Then, having taught one of the many explanations of rejoicing in general, it sets the scene for the ultimate explanation with,

“Furthermore, Maitreya, bodhisattva great beings who have newly set out in the vehicle should compress together the merit accumulations and the wholesome roots planted by the lord buddhas whose path has come to an end, whose thought constructions and cravings for existence have been cut off,”

and so on.

5.223Then Maitreya asks him how do they not go wrong and then the elder Subhūti teaches a section on dedication free of basic immorality, ninefold.

5.224There, the first section is that dedication is not wrong based on the absence of the six perceptions, but otherwise it will be wrong.

5.225The second section is where it says

“it is a conforming dedication,”

if they contemplate like this: ultimately there is no dedication because thinking about the thought of buddhas and so on, as well as the thought of the dedication,

“are extinguished”‍—

even awakening is nonexistent, dharmas are empty of an intrinsic nature, and dedication is nonexistent as well.

5.226Then the third is where it says if, having rejoiced in the merits, whatever they may be, of all

“past, future, and present”

śrāvakas, bodhisattvas, buddhas, and ordinary beings,

“they rejoice in them and dedicate them, paying attention to their being”

extinguished,

“paying attention to there being no dedication, and paying attention to the”

emptiness of an intrinsic nature,

“by that dedication they”

dedicate to unsurpassed, perfect, complete awakening.

5.227Then the fourth is where it says when they

“are aware that the piling up of”

the merit from dedication is isolated from all dharmas, and all dharmas are isolated from an intrinsic nature, they dedicate with

“the best, up to the equal to the unequaled dedication.” [F.191.b]

5.228Then the fifth, as before, is where it says that when they rejoice in the wholesome roots and dedicate them, they dedicate while aware that the śrāvakas, pratyekabuddhas, bodhisattvas, wholesome roots, dedication, awakening, and the thought doing the dedication are the same in their intrinsic nature.

5.229Then the sixth is where it says that when they fashion a causal sign for the wholesome roots and dedicate them, and, by paying attention to past buddhas as past, fashion a causal sign for them and pay attention to them as an object, it becomes wrong, but when

“they do not form a knowledge of and do not give validity to those wholesome roots, those accumulations, or those productions of the thought,”

they dedicate perfectly.

5.230Then the seventh is the section of the dedication that has not been poisoned. This is where the bodhisattva Maitreya, thinking how is it possible that the two‍—not fashioning a causal sign and dedication‍—are not a contradiction, asks the elder Subhūti, who then teaches that it is when the dedication is made by

“bodhisattvas who are skilled.”

5.231Then the bodhisattva Maitreya teaches that bodhisattvas who want to make a perfect dedication

“should reflect deeply as follows: … those buddhas, those wholesome roots, those accumulations, and those… thoughts”

do not exist; nevertheless, look how having fashioned causal signs I construct them all in my mind. Tathāgatas do not permit such a dedication where, having fashioned such causal signs, they conceptualize them. It is similar to a delicacy that has been poisoned. So such a dedication should not be made, and training should not be done in that. Therefore, having taken the Buddha alone as authority, they make a dedication, thinking, “I shall dedicate those wholesome roots just as the lord buddhas [F.192.a] understand them.”

5.232Then the eighth is where it says dedication while paying attention to all dharmas that do not belong to the three realms and three time periods

“has not been poisoned.”

Dedication other than that

“has been poisoned.”

5.233And then the ninth is where it says

“I too must dedicate… in this truly dharmic way,”

which is the domain of the transcendental knowledge of the buddhas.

5.234Then the Lord, having rejoiced in many ways in those statements, gives a threefold teaching about greatly increasing merit.

5.235The first is

“this dedication… without attachment creates even more merit than”

the merit

“if all the beings that are in the billionfold world system were to obtain the ten wholesome actions… the concentrations, … the immeasurables, … the absorptions, and… the clairvoyances.”

5.236The second is that one has even more than the merit created from having served those beings if they

“were to become stream enterers,”

and so on, up to

“worthy ones and pratyekabuddhas,”

with the four necessities for as long as they live.

5.237And the third is, were all those beings to have become bodhisattvas, just that same one has even more than the masses of merit such as those created by all the beings in the ten directions were they to have served each of them with the four necessities and

“with all the requirements for happiness… for as many eons as there are sand particles in the Gaṅgā River.”

“Lord, if that basis of meritorious action had a physical form it would not fit in even as many world systems as there are sand particles in the Gaṅgā River”

means all of it would not fit there.

5.239Then there is a section on earlier merits being inferior [F.192.b] because they have the perception of a causal sign and

“a perception that apprehends something,”

and masses of dedication merits being greater than them because they do not exist.

5.240Then there are two sections where all the chiefs of the gods and gods living in the desire realm, and all the Brahmās in the higher realms, have worshiped and raised their voices in praise, and then the section teaching that the merit of a single bodhisattva who dedicates while not apprehending anything is much greater than the merit from the dedication by way of apprehending something by

“all the beings in a billionfold world system”

who have become bodhisattvas.

5.241The first rejoicing is

“without grasping, without rejecting, without falsely projecting, without acquiring, and without apprehending,”

which teaches the sameness of those buddhas and those wholesome roots based on the fact that there is no worse or better in suchness. Similarly, because

“there is no production, cessation, defilement, purification,”

and so on,

“I also rejoice,”

just like those buddhas, śrāvakas, pratyekabuddhas, bodhisattvas, and ordinary beings, and the wholesome roots, and the dedicating thought that all abide in suchness.

5.242Then the second is also rejoicing while understanding analytically that all dharmas are comparable to

“liberation,”

which is to say, all dharmas are the same because they are comparable to that; because all dharmas are isolated from an intrinsic nature, so earlier at the stage of ordinary beings they

“are not bound, are not freed”;

5.243because all dharmas that are pure in their basic nature

“are not defiled”

earlier and

“are not purified”

later;

5.244because all dharmas that are primordially calm

“are not produced”

through the power of earlier causes and conditions; because they have no intrinsic nature,

“do not appear,”

and later

“do not stop… have not changed places, [F.193.a] and have not been destroyed”‍—

5.245thus all dharmas are the same because

“they are not bound, are not freed, are not defiled, and are not purified, … are not produced, do not appear, and do not stop, have not changed places, and have not been destroyed.”

5.246Then there is the section teaching that the merit from dedicating the aggregates of morality from

“practicing the perfections… by way of not apprehending anything”

is greater than merit accumulated from having served all the buddhas in the ten directions with all the requirements for happiness and by practicing the six perfections together with apprehending something.

These are the sections of the text on rejoicing.

Explanation of Chapters 34 to 36

Wheel of the Dharma and the perfection of wisdom

5.247Then Śāriputra, feeling faith after having heard about the vast merit from rejoicing in, and dedication of, such worship and reciting of the perfection of wisdom, and from giving and so on, begins with seventeen statements in praise of this perfection of wisdom, to generate faith in others in the retinue.

“Turning the wheel of the Dharma that has twelve aspects three times”‍—

the Lord turned “the wheel of the Dharma” of the four truths “that has twelve aspects three times.” There he turns it three times: One is: “These are the four truths.” It is the part of the speech stating the intrinsic nature of the four truths. The second turning is the part of the speech stating that just those four truths have to be comprehended, eliminated, realized, and cultivated. The third turning is the part of the speech stating that “I have comprehended, eliminated, realized, and cultivated” just those four truths. Those are the turning three times.

5.249For the truth of suffering [F.193.b] there are three aspects: the intrinsic nature of suffering, that it has to be comprehended, and that “I have comprehended.” For the truth of origination there are three aspects: the intrinsic nature of origination, that it has to be eliminated, and that “I have eliminated it.” For the truth of cessation there are three aspects: the intrinsic nature of cessation, that it has to be realized, and that “I have realized it.” And for the truth of the path there are three aspects: the intrinsic nature of the path, that it has to be cultivated, and that “I have cultivated it.” Thus, there are twelve aspects.

“Lord, how does one stand in the perfection of wisdom?”

Śatakratu has already asked earlier about the way to stand in the perfection of wisdom, and it has already been explained, so this is not a question about the way to stand in the perfection of wisdom. Here “how does one stand” means this: how, by respecting and serving it, does one stand?

“The perfection of wisdom is itself the Teacher and the Teacher is himself the perfection of wisdom.”

Because it does the work of the Buddha it is envisioned and taught to be not different.

5.252Śatakratu wonders,

“What occasioned this inquiry by the venerable monk Śāriputra? What was the catalyst?”

because he is not satisfied with just those reasons Śāriputra has given. So then Śāriputra says

“assisted by the perfection of wisdom”

and so on. It teaches that this perfection of wisdom is principal. It teaches that even though all the perfections other than that are causes of unsurpassed, perfect, complete awakening, they are governed by it, so it should be greatly respected.

“Dedicate”

them all

“to the knowledge of all aspects”

by rejoicing in them.

“When the five perfections are assisted by the perfection of giving, they do not get the name perfection .” [F.194.a]

It says this because it taught earlier that all six are lodged one in the other and work as a single cause.

“It is not so, Kauśika, it is not so”

is teaching that when you complete one of the six perfections, all six are completed, so they are reciprocally one and just simply one cause, but, unlike the perfection of wisdom that is the nature of them all, they are not therefore the cause in all respects.

“Lord, how should [they]… find and produce within themselves the perfection of wisdom?”

Here too it is not asking how they find and produce the perfection of wisdom within themselves, it is asking what the result of finding and producing the perfection of wisdom within themselves is.

“So they do not find and produce within themselves form”

means: so form is a nonexistent thing.

“Lord, how do they find and produce within themselves the perfection of wisdom so that they do not find and produce within themselves form?”

This is the second question Śāriputra asks the Lord. It means: in what form within themselves should the perfection of wisdom be found and produced so that the nonexistence of form and so on is feasible?

“Śāriputra, they should find and produce within themselves the perfection of wisdom as the nonenactment, the nonproduction, the noncessation, the nonappearance, the nondestruction, and the nonapprehension of form.”

5.260In the context of a thoroughly established phenomenon there is no “enactment” of falsely imagined form. There is neither “production nor cessation” from the perspective of a continuum. In each instant there is neither “appearance nor nondestruction.” And there is no “apprehension” because in all respects there is no production. It

“does not cause any dharma to be gained.”

At that time there are not any dharmas at all. [F.194.b]

“It is counted as the perfection of wisdom .”

The nonconceptual effortless wisdom that has gone to the other side of the nonexistence of all dharmas is the “perfection of wisdom.”

“The perfection of wisdom… does not cause even the knowledge of all aspects to be gained. It does not apprehend it.”

In the context of the dharma body, just that is the perfection of wisdom, just that is the knowledge of all aspects. It does not apprehend that “the knowledge of all aspects is one thing and the perfection of wisdom another.”

“Kauśika… it is because the perfection of wisdom does not cause it to be gained as a name, as a causal sign, or as something to be enacted.”

The true nature of dharmas is nonconceptual. The perfection of wisdom does not grasp any dharma at all through a name, causal sign, or enactment, so the knowledge of all aspects cannot be apprehended through that name, that causal sign, or that enactment.

“Well then, Lord, how does this perfection of wisdom cause it to be gained?”

Insofar as the perfection of wisdom does cause the knowledge of all aspects to be gained conventionally, how does it cause it to be gained?

“The perfection of wisdom causes it to be gained without apprehending, without asserting, without being stationed on, without forsaking, without settling down on, without grasping, and without rejecting anything at all, but it does not cause any dharma to be gained.”

5.266When apprehended and apprehender have become the same thing in the same form, this wisdom does not “apprehend” that this is a dharma I have to grasp; does not “assert” that I myself am the grasper; does not see, as does the eye and so on, as something “stationed”; does not see any defiling conceptualization that has to be “forsaken”; [F.195.a] does not “settle down” even slightly on “this is true” as being in the nature of truth; and does not “grasp or reject” because it does not see what is grasped and has to be joined with in the form of bright and dark sides. At that time, because it itself is the entity of the knowledge of all aspects, it is also said that “it causes the knowledge of all aspects to be gained.”

“It is amazing, Lord, … this perfection of wisdom…”

Because all dharmas do not exist, they are not produced, do not cease, do not occasion anything, are not apprehended, and are not destroyed in that context, it is explained with the names

“nonproduction”

and so on.

5.268It says if they

“have such ideas as ‘the perfection of wisdom causes all dharmas to be gained’ or ‘the perfection of wisdom does not cause all dharmas to be gained,’… the perfection of wisdom is forsaken,”

because both an existent thing and a nonexistent thing are thought constructions.

“I do not have confidence in form.”

This means the Lord has confidence in and comprehends form that is marked as a nonexistent thing. Construe the others similarly.

“Subhūti, the perfection of wisdom gives me confidence because form cannot be apprehended,”

and so on, means that having comprehended all dharmas, form and so on, as the nonexistence of an intrinsic nature, the Lord has “confidence in”‍—that is, has a directly realization of‍—the perfection of wisdom.

“Does not make form bigger nor does not make it smaller”‍—

it does not make the form of the true nature of dharmas that is thoroughly established bigger and it does not make falsely imagined form smaller. Construe them all similarly.

“Those bodhisattva great beings with such notions, Lord, are not practicing the [F.195.b] the perfection of wisdom.”

Were this perfection of wisdom to do anything, in that case it might be right to say ‘this perfection of wisdom does not do anything,’ but because this perfection of wisdom is beyond every false imagination it does not do anything at all. Therefore it is not right to say that “the perfection of wisdom does not make form bigger and does not make form smaller” and so on.

“Lord… because… they are not in harmony with the perfection of wisdom as cause”

means that because all dharmas remain in their intrinsic nature, in their own basic nature as it really is, there is nothing there in harmony with the perfection of wisdom as cause.

5.274Now it again teaches that even the perfection of wisdom is like form and so on, in twelve rounds of teaching beginning with

“because beings are not produced.”

You should view the perfection of wisdom as marked by nonproduction because a being is marked by not arising.

5.275There, “because beings are not produced,” up to

“because one who sees is not produced,”

intends the selflessness of persons. From

“because form is not produced, up to… because a buddha is not produced,”

intends the selflessness of dharmas.

“There is no full awakening”

of form and so on. There is no realization of them.

“Because beings are not endowed with the powers,”

they are weak or do not have the power of wisdom.

Not bound and not freed

“Because dharmas are in an inanimate material state”

means because all dharmas are the nonexistence of an intrinsic nature.

5.279The elder Śāriputra, having heard that this perfection is thus in its nature big and vast, feels faith, and for the bodhisattvas poses four questions about the death and birth of bodhisattvas, the amount of time since they have set out, [F.196.a] the number of tathāgatas they have attended on, and the amount of time they have been practitioners of the perfections. That same part of the text sets the scene for an account of what happens to those forsaking the good Dharma, and that same part of the text also sets the scene for it being

“hard… to believe in this perfection of wisdom.”

5.280Then, because it has taught it is hard to believe in, Subhūti asks the question,

“Just how deep, Lord, is this perfection of wisdom in which it is so hard for them to believe?”

5.281The Lord explains that it

“is not bound and it is not freed,”

explains about

“purity,”

explains about

“the unlimited,”

and explains about

“those who are attached and not attached.”

Thus, it sets the scene for a fourfold explanation.

5.282Among these,

“Subhūti… form is not bound and it is not freed.”

5.283During the period of the cycle of existences, that which is the appearance of the thoroughly established true dharmic nature of form “is not bound,” because, for the entire duration it is not bound by all the bonds of affliction, karma, and maturation, and later during the period of the thoroughly established phenomenon it “is not freed” because freedom does not exist, so being “bound and freed” is said of just a falsely imagined state, not of the true dharmic nature of form that, like space, is not tainted by anything at all. Therefore, it says

“because the nonexistence of an intrinsic nature in form is form.”

This means falsely imagined form, the nonexistence of an intrinsic nature, is the true dharmic nature of form. You should construe all dharmas, up to the knowledge of all aspects, like this as well.

5.284Again, to elucidate just that, that it is not bound and is not freed, there is an explanation in tandem with the three time periods:

“Subhūti, the prior limit of form is not bound and is not freed.”

The “prior limit” is the true dharmic nature of form in the cycle of existences during the period when there are stains and impurity. [F.196.b] The

“present”

describes the present period during which there is purity and impurity.

“The later limit”

describes the future period when there is purity.

“Because the nonexistence of an intrinsic nature in the prior limit is form”

teaches that what is marked as abiding without change in all three time periods is suchness, indicating that the true nature of dharmas does not have the mark of being freed over time.

Purity

5.287Having thus taught, through the explanation of not being bound and not being freed, that saṃsāra and nirvāṇa are nonexistent things, again, to teach that defilement and purification do not exist it begins the explanation of purity with

“that purity of form is the purity of the result.”

5.288There the dharmas from form, up to, finally, the knowledge of all aspects, have no bonds so there is no defilement. Because there is no defilement they are pure in their intrinsic nature, and because they are pure in their intrinsic nature there are no purification dharmas either. Ultimately purification dharmas do not do anything at all to natural purity. So, even though defilement and purification are impossible, foolish beings construct them. They are not thoroughly established.

5.289Thus, having taught in one way that it is hard to believe, it again teaches it is hard to believe because of purity. There, “just that purity of form is the purity of the result” means there is nothing other than purity that results from the purification dharmas‍—the perfections, the dharmas on the side of awakening, and so on. The true dharmic nature of form, the constantly abiding purity in the form of the thoroughly established nature, just that is purity in the form of the result.

You should construe all the dharmas like this as well.

5.290Having thus [F.197.a] taught the intrinsic nature of purity, then it teaches that the purity of all dharmas is also one, not broken apart:

“That purity of form is the purity of the result. That purity of the result is the purity of the perfection of wisdom. That purity of the perfection of wisdom is the purity of form.”

5.291There, the true dharmic nature of the form state is called “the purity of form.” The very limit of reality called the “nirvāṇa” state is called “the purity of the result.” The dharma body state is called “the purity of the perfection of wisdom.” The meaning there is that the suchness that is the purity of form is the purity of the result, that is, is freed; just that freedom is the purity of the perfection of wisdom, that is, is the dharma body; and just that dharma body is the purity of form, that is, is suchness. Hence suchness, freedom, and the dharma body are ultimately not broken apart.

5.292You should construe up to the purity of the knowledge of all aspects like this as well.

5.293Summing up in conclusion it teaches that the purity of all dharmas is one. Therefore, those purities from the purity of form, the purity of the result, and the purity of the perfection of wisdom, up to the knowledge of all aspects, are

“not two, not divided, not separate, and not broken apart.”

They are “not two” because they are the same; they are “not divided” because you cannot divide them into different things; they are “not separate” because a particular one does not exist; they are “not broken apart” because nothing obstructs them, or, because they are constant.

5.294Thus, it has taught the purity of the result [F.197.b] shared in common with śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas. Now, to teach the uncommon purity of bodhisattvas it leaves out the result, and it teaches having taken up only the purity of the perfection of wisdom.

5.295Thus, these two passages teach that the purity of śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas, and the purity of the tathāgata, are “one.”

5.296Now it teaches the purity in a sequence of three connected sections: the purity that is the nonexistence of a self of persons, the purity that is the nonexistence of secondary afflictions, and the purity that is the nonexistence of a self in dharmas.

“Because of the purity of self, there is the purity of form.”

The knowledge that a self is a nonexistent thing is the purity of self. There it should be taught in the order of the sections of the text. It teaches that

“because of the purity of self, there is the purity of form.”

Because of the purity of form there is the purity of self. Thus, this purity of self and purity of form are not two, are not divided, are not separate, and are not broken apart.

5.298Similarly,

“because of the purity of self, there is the purity of feeling… perception… volitional factors… and consciousness. Because of the purity of consciousness, there is the purity of self,”

and so on, and that

“the purity of self and purity of”

all dharmas, up to, finally,

“the purity of the knowledge of all aspects”

is not two.

5.299Then, in the section on the purity that is the nonexistence of secondary afflictions,

“because of the purity of greed there is the purity of form; because of the purity of form there is the purity of greed. Thus, this purity of greed and the purity of form is not two,”

and so on, again explains that the purity of dharmas, up to, finally, the knowledge of all aspects, [F.198.a] and the purity of greed

“is not two.”

5.300Similarly connect this with

“hatred, and confusion.”

5.301Then, in the section on the purity that is the nonexistence of a self of dharmas, having taken up the purity of dharmas, the dependent originations, and so on, up to, finally, the knowledge of all aspects, there is the section explaining that the purity of two dharmas is not two:

“Because of the purity of ignorance there is the purity of volitional factors; because of the purity of volitional factors there is the purity of ignorance. Thus, this purity of ignorance and the purity of volitional factors is not two,”

and so on. So too with the perfections as well, it says,

“Because of the purity of the perfection of giving there is the purity of the perfection of morality; because of the purity of the perfection of morality there is the purity of the perfection of giving. Thus, this purity of the perfection of giving and the purity of the perfection of morality is not two,”

and so on. All have to be construed in the same way as well. Thus, you should construe

“because of the purity of the knowledge of the path aspects there is the purity of the knowledge of all aspects, because of the purity of the knowledge of all aspects there is the purity of the knowledge of all path aspects. Thus, this purity of the knowledge of the path aspects and the purity of the knowledge of all aspects is not two,”

and so on.

5.304Then, also in the section gathering the purity of all dharmas together, first, having taken up among the six perfections the purity of the perfection of wisdom, and the purity of the aggregates and so on, up to, finally, the six collections of feelings, and the purity of the knowledge of all aspects, there is the section teaching that it is not two:

“Furthermore, Subhūti, that purity [F.198.b] of the perfection of wisdom is the purity of form. That purity of form is the purity of the knowledge of all aspects. Thus, this purity of the perfection of wisdom, purity of form, and purity of the knowledge of all aspects is not two, not divided, not separate, and not broken apart.”

5.306Similarly connect this with

“feeling, perception, volitional factors, and consciousness,”

up to

“that purity of the perfection of wisdom is the purity of the feeling that arises from the condition of contact with the thinking mind. The purity of the feeling that arises from the condition of contact with the thinking mind is the purity of the knowledge of all aspects. Thus, this purity of the perfection of wisdom, purity of the feeling that arises from the condition of contact with the thinking mind, and purity of the knowledge of all aspects is not two,”

and so on. Then also, having taken up the purity of the dharmas‍—from the perfection of concentration up to the aggregates and so on, and finally the feelings‍—and

“the purity of the knowledge of all aspects,”

it teaches that it is not two; and similarly it teaches that the purity of the dharmas‍—all the perfections, all the emptinesses, up to, finally, the feelings‍—and

“the purity of the knowledge of all aspects is not two”;

and, similarly, it explains that (1) the purity of the dharmas, the applications of mindfulness, and so on, up to, finally, all-knowledge; and (2) the purity of the dharmas form and so on, up to, finally, the six collections of feelings; and (3) the purity of the knowledge of all aspects is one.

5.307Then it teaches the section on

“the purity of the compounded”

and

“the uncompounded,” [F.199.a]

and the section on the purity of the three time periods.

5.308The elder Śāriputra, having listened to the exposition of purity up to here, because a retinue is gathered together, musters the confidence to speak and says,

“Lord, this purity is deep,”

and so on. With this begins a sequence of thirteen statements about purity.

“Śāriputra, it is deep because it is extremely pure”

says that the true nature of dharmas that is not broken apart from those saṃsāric dharmas, composed of the stains of the many afflictions, secondary afflictions, and conceptualizations, does not become stained by those stains. It is extremely pure at all times, so it is hard for fools to feel confidence in it. Hence it is called “deep because it is extremely pure.”

“Śāriputra, purity is light because it is extremely pure,”

To illustrate, the sun and moon and so on are extremely pure, that is, they shine brightly where there are no clouds, fog, haze and so on. Similarly, the true dharmic nature of form and so on is called “light because it is extremely pure,” so it says “purity is light because form is extremely pure.”

“Lord, purity does not link up.”

Because the stains of the proliferation of afflictions and conceptualizations have stopped there is no further linking up, so, because it is stainless and pure, it is said that it “does not link up.”

“Śāriputra, form does not link up because it does not change places, so it is pure”

means because falsely imagined form and so on that have been abandoned do not change places again, they have stopped.

“Lord, purity is without defilement”

is saying that even though there have been clouds, fog, haze and so on, like space, in its basic nature it is thoroughly clean. [F.199.b]

“Lord, there is no obtaining and no clear realization of purity.”

Were the two dharmas‍—something obtained and a cause of obtaining‍—to exist, there would be an “obtaining”; were the two dharmas‍—something clearly realized and a cause of clear realization‍—to exist, there would be a “clear realization.” But because the mere nonexistence of false imagining and conceptualizing is posited as the “purity” that is the thoroughly established true nature of dharmas, “obtaining” and “clear realization” do not exist in that purity at all.

“Lord, purity does not come into being.”

“Purity” is posited as the dharmas, falsely imagined and conceptualized form and so on, not coming into being, so it is “marked by not coming into being.”

“Lord, purity does not arise in the desire realm… the form realm… [or] the formless realm.”

The desire, form, and formless realms are falsely imagined. When not arising and appearing in them it is called “purity,” so it says

“because you cannot apprehend the desire realm’s intrinsic nature.”

“Lord, purity does not know”

means the self is not the intrinsic nature self-awareness.

“Because dharmas are inanimate material”‍—

it is saying “dharmas are inanimate material” because they are free from conceptual consciousness.

“Lord, purity does not know form.”

This means it also does not see all dharmas, form and so on.

“Because it is empty of its own mark”

means things like form and so on are without defining marks. This “does not know” teaches that purity is the mark of the absence of conceptualization. This “purity [F.200.a] does not know form” teaches that dharmas are the mark of nonexistence. The two teach the mark of the nonexistence of apprehended object and apprehending subject.

“Lord, the perfection of wisdom does not help nor does it hinder the knowledge of all aspects,”

because both, marked by suchness, are

“extremely pure.”

5.322Suchness does not help and does not hinder suchness, just like space does not help and does not hinder space. Therefore, it says

“because of the establishment of the dharma-constituent.”

This is teaching that nobody helps or hinders the dharma body, given that at all times it is marked by staying in the same state.

“Lord, the purity that is the perfection of wisdom does not assist any dharma,”

because the extremely pure perfection of wisdom is the mark of not taking hold of anything. Were it to take hold of any dharma it would not be pure.

5.324Then the statements by the elder Subhūti,

“Lord, form is pure because self is pure”

and so on, mean that because the self is something that is nonexistent, form and so on are things that do not exist either, because here you have to take “purity” as something that does not exist. Hence, it says

“because it is extremely pure, Subhūti.”

5.325Earlier it was teaching the pure perfection of wisdom, now it is teaching the purity of selflessness.

“Because knowledge is not found and is not discarded, Subhūti.”

They do not obtain or find a transcendent knowledge that was not there before, and a transcendent knowledge that is found is also not lost, so, because there are neither, there is not even awakening. Even “awakening” is falsely imagined.

“Nonduality [F.200.b] and purity”‍—

because the two‍—defilement and purification‍—do not exist, it is pure in its intrinsic nature even before, so like space it has no defilement. And even at the period of the final outcome, it is like space that has no purity that was not there before.

[B20]

5.328Having thus completed the explanation of purity, it begins the explanation of the unlimited to inculcate belief in the deep, with

“because form is unlimited.”

It is “unlimited” because it is not permanent and not annihilated, and is not at the prior limit, later limit, or in the middle. Therefore, it says

“because of the emptiness of what transcends limits and the emptiness of no beginning and no end, Subhūti.”

5.329Why does the elder Subhūti ask,

“Lord, why is such a realization as that the perfection of wisdom of bodhisattva great beings?”

5.330He is asking why, if the perfection of wisdom is so deep a topic as that, is it just an object of bodhisattvas, not of buddhas. It says,

“Because it is the knowledge of path aspects, Subhūti.”

5.331Thus, this perfection of wisdom is not the final one, is not when the work is done. It is an aspect of the path of the knowledge of all aspects, hence it is “just of bodhisattvas.”

“Lord, you cannot apprehend the perfection of wisdom of bodhisattva great beings on this side, on the farther side, or on neither.”

What does this intend? You can suppose “perfection” (pāramitā) is on the way to the other side (para), has arrived at the other side, or is the essential nature of the other side. It says this because, even when taken to be the perfection of wisdom of bodhisattvas, [F.201.a] it is not positioned on this side, it is not positioned on the farther side, and cannot be apprehended on some other that is not included in those sides. “This side” incorporates the compounded; “the farther side” incorporates the uncompounded.

5.333After saying that,

“Because it is extremely pure,” said the Lord.

Were any side to be apprehended, then, in that case, it would not be purity. This means it is extremely pure because there are none, and, because it is extremely pure, it is not positioned on either side or anywhere else either.

“Because of the sameness of the three time periods, Subhūti”‍—

this means that with the comprehension of the sameness of the three time periods, because of the emptiness of no beginning and no end, there is no notion of this side and no notion of a farther side, and hence “it does not stand on this side and it also does not stand on the farther side.”

Attachment and nonattachment

5.335In order to build trust that the perfection of wisdom is deep, it then again sets the scene for the explanation of attachment and nonattachment from the perspective of practices that apprehend and do not apprehend, with

“they are attached to a name and attached to a causal sign,”

and so on. Seizing on a dharma, form and so on, as a word is falsely imagining. Seizing on a causal sign as a conventional term is conceptualizing. Both are obscurations, so they are “attachment.”

“Subhūti, even though all dharmas are without causal signs and without names”

is teaching that they are within the range of the perfection of wisdom.

“Lord, such an excellent exposition and excellent definitive teaching of this perfection of wisdom… to bodhisattva great beings is amazing”‍—

this is teaching of the knowledge of path aspects.

“When… they perceive that form is ‘empty,’ they are attached” [F.201.b]

is thinking like that by way of apprehending something.

“Not perceive form as ‘form’ ”‍—

this is the bodhisattva’s knowledge of path aspects.

“Not perceive… dharmas as… ‘dharmas’ ”‍—

they do not appear.

“Kauśika, it is because the basic nature of form cannot be dedicated”

means dharmas should not be dedicated to awakening by way of apprehending something, because they stay in the same state and do not undergo transformation.

“Subhūti, I will teach you other sorts of attachment even more subtle than those”

that obscure the knowledge of path aspects.

“Lord, the perfection of wisdom is deep.”

Earlier, to build trust, the elder Śāriputra set the scene for the explanation of the perfection of wisdom being deep, and for it being hard to believe in. Now, to demonstrate that he himself has comprehended that it is deep, the elder Subhūti says, “Lord, … [it] is deep.”

“Subhūti, it is because all dharmas are isolated in their basic nature.”

Thus all phenomena are always deserted by all attachments, are deserted by a basic nature, are isolated in their basic nature. But falsely imagined attachment is still apprehending, and even though falsely imagined attachment is apprehending, still all dharmas are untainted, that is, are isolated in their intrinsic nature so they are deep.

“The perfection of wisdom… is unmade and does not cause anything to come into being.”

In it there is nothing to be established and nothing is caused to come into being because it is the intrinsic nature of the dharma body.

“The basic nature of a dharma is not two; it is simply one.”

As the intrinsic nature that is suchness, all dharmas are a single entity, but still they appear with different identities. This is difficult to clearly realize. Because suchness is the intrinsic nature of all dharmas [F.202.a] it is called their “basic nature.” That suchness, moreover, is not the cause of any other true nature of dharmas, so it

“is not a basic nature.”

5.347This suchness is uncompounded; it is not made by anybody, so it

“is unmade.”

5.348Just that

“has not caused anything to come into being”

because no enactment of merit or demerit whatsoever has occasioned it.

“Nobody has seen, heard, thought about, been conscious of, or fully awakened to the perfection of wisdom,”

because the perfection of wisdom is not the object of seeing consciousness and so on, nor of thought constructions such as those, because an apprehender and an apprehended object are the same in their intrinsic nature.

“The perfection of wisdom is inconceivable”

means you cannot conceive of it through another dharma, like fire indicated by smoke. Therefore, it says

“it is not known through form”

and so on. It

“is the nonapprehender of all dharmas.”

5.351It makes all dharmas known as the mark of what cannot be apprehended.

Explanation of Chapters 37 and 38

“How do [they]… practice the perfection of wisdom?”

that is, the knowledge of path aspects.

5.353The section of the text to teach that if those conscious of a basic nature practice all dharmas they do not practice the perfection of wisdom is

“if they do not practice form,”

and so on. The second section is to teach that when those conscious of special insight practice the marks of dharmas, they do not practice the perfection of wisdom.

5.354It says,

“ ‘form is completed’ or ‘not completed,’ ”

intending when meditation is completed.

“ ‘Form is not attached’ ”

is the unobstructed true dharmic nature of form. When they practice like that

“they do not perceive ‘form is not attached.’ ”

This means that if, when practicing, they have set out like that, then when they awaken to the knowledge of all aspects they will have a realization like that.

Benefits of purity

5.356Subhūti’s [F.202.b] statement that he is amazed, the statement of some monk or other, the statement by Śatakratu, and the statement that guarding, protecting, and keeping safe are not possible are all alike.

“They do not falsely project form”

as a functioning thing that is real and a defining mark and so on;

“do not falsely project form as ‘mine’ ”

as a real thing, like a master’s servant;

“do not falsely project anything onto form”

as a real thing on a foundation or basis; and

“do not falsely project a causal sign of form”

as a basis of a designation that is a conventional term.

5.358The description of

“the thousand buddhas”

is because those thousand buddhas cause faith to arise in that perfection of wisdom.

5.359The question about

“Maitreya”

teaching the Dharma is to make it known that during the three periods of time the explanations are of just this perfection of wisdom.

5.360Then,

“Subhūti, the perfection of wisdom is pure because form is pure.”

The dharmas, form and so on, that have been apprehended are stainless, so the knowledge of path aspects is also pure.

“Subhūti, form… is unproduced and unceasing, without defilement and without purification.”

When form abides in its intrinsic nature‍—the true nature of dharmas‍—and does not appear as produced, ceasing, defiled, or purified, that

“form is pure,”

not otherwise.

“Because space is pure”‍—

this is teaching that just as space does not become impure even if there are clouds and haze because it is pure in its nature, so too with the perfection of wisdom. The six‍—

“pure… untainted… cannot be grasped… does not say anything… does not converse about anything… cannot be apprehended”‍—

teach that it is comparable to space.

“Because space does not say anything”‍— [F.203.a]

even though in space something other than that space says something, in space nothing is said and there is no conversation,

“just like the two sounds of an echo, as an analogy,”

reverberate in space, but it is not suitable to say that space says something.

“Because space does not converse about anything”

means that because of its intrinsic nature there is no conversation in space. Alternatively, “saying something” is mere sound; “conversing” is naming.

“Subhūti, … because form is extremely pure, cannot be apprehended, is unproduced and unceasing, and without defilement and without purification”‍—

when this perfection of wisdom sees all dharmas, it sees the “pure” aspect of form and so on because the stains of falsely imagined afflictions and conceptualizations constructed in thought do not exist; the aspect that “cannot be apprehended” because it is separated from all apprehending; the “unproduced and unceasing” aspects because it is a thoroughly established phenomenon; and the aspects “without defilement and without purification” because it is isolated from an intrinsic nature. At that point it is called

“pure”

in its nature.

5.366Having thus taught that the perfection of wisdom is extremely pure, then, to engender faith in it, they

“will not contract diseases of the eye,”

and so on, teaches its benefits in the here and now and in future lives.

“In the perfection of wisdom there is no dharma that is produced or ceases, is defiled or purified, or is appropriated or rejected at all”

teaches that production, cessation, and so on do not appear in the perfection of wisdom.

“Thus, do not form a notion, and thus do not conceive”‍—

they do not even conceive of the perfection of wisdom as such

“a great jewel” [F.203.b]

endowed with those good qualities.

“Subhūti, this perfection of wisdom does not establish any dharma, or teach it.”

All dharmas are thoroughly established phenomena that do not alter, so at the time they are thoroughly established phenomena this perfection of wisdom appears like that, which is to say, there is no false projection of having to establish any special dharma; there is no false projection of taking hold of or bestowing any special dharma; there is no false projection of producing dharmas without outflows or stopping bad dharmas; there is no false projection of annihilating the dharmas of cyclic existence or of making purification permanent; there is no false projection of being one or being different things; there is no false projection of coming about through the power of bodhisattva activities not there before or being separated from all obscurations; there is no false projection of having earlier become defiled by afflictions, secondary afflictions, and so on, and later being purified; there is no false projection of making dark dharmas decline and making bright dharmas increase; there is no false projection of being included in the three periods of time; there is no false projection of being established in the three realms or of having to transcend them; and there is no false projection of bestowing the perfection of giving and so on, or of removing their opposing sides of miserliness and so on.

“Subhūti, whether the tathāgatas arise or whether the tathāgatas do not arise”

is teaching the mark of all dharmas that remain in the same state, nothing doing anything at all. Those “tathāgatas,” so called because they know just this state in which dharmas remain, appear in the world. It means just this is their [F.204.a] clear realization, just this is

“the wheel of Dharma.”

“Subhūti… it is not a second turning of the wheel of Dharma and it is not a first turning either.”

It says this because ultimately all dharmas are beyond counting. It

“has not been made available in order to turn or not turn any Dharma”

removes the notion or idea that it is turning or not turning the wheel of Dharma.

“Given the emptiness that is the nonexistence of an intrinsic nature”

means the perfection of wisdom grasps all dharmas as the mark of the emptiness that is the nonexistence of an intrinsic nature.

“The perfection of wisdom is a great perfection,”

and so on. With the ninety-five statements the elder Subhūti explains at length that this perfection of wisdom engages with all dharmas.

5.374There “the perfection of wisdom is a great perfection” teaches that it is a great object, and a great secret in the form of an object. It says about such a secret that it is three: a secret engagement with dharmas, a secret awakening, and a secret turning of the wheel of Dharma.

5.375There, for dharmas, governed by the conventional and ultimate, it engages with perceiving dharmas as dharmas and also engages with perceiving them as not dharmas as well, so it says

“all dharmas are empty of the intrinsic nature of all dharmas.”

5.376It teaches awakening but also sees the nonexistence of awakening, so it says

“but still, bodhisattva great beings abiding in this perfection of wisdom fully awaken to unsurpassed, perfect, complete awakening without fully awakening to any dharma at all.”

5.377Teaching the secret turning of the wheel of Dharma, it says

“will turn the wheel of the Dharma but will not turn or not turn [F.204.b] any Dharma.”

5.378Then there is the section with the eightfold turning of the wheel of Dharma: the nonexistence of the Dharma, the nonexistence of the wheel, the nonexistence of the turning, the nonexistence of the intrinsic nature of an explanation, the nonexistence of one who explains, the nonexistence of one who listens, the nonexistence of realization, and the nonexistence of a noble person.

5.379There, about the nonexistence of the Dharma, it says

“will not see any Dharma at all, and will not not see any Dharma at all either.”

5.380About the nonexistence of the wheel, it says

“because a Dharma that will be turned or will not be turned cannot be apprehended.”

5.381About the nonexistence of turning, it says

“emptiness does not turn it, nor does it not turn it. The signless and the wishless also do not turn it, nor do they not turn it.”

5.382About the nonexistence of an explanation, it says

“therefore, this teaching of the perfection of wisdom, this illumination,”

up to

“is the teaching of the perfection of wisdom that is perfectly pure.”

5.383About the nonexistence of one who explains, it says

“nobody teaches that teaching of the perfection of wisdom.”

5.384About the nonexistence of one who listens, it says

“and nobody receives it.”

5.385About the nonexistence of realization, it says

“nobody has directly realized it.”

5.386And about the absence of a noble person, it says

“nobody has entered into nirvāṇa either. And in this Dharma teaching there is also nobody who becomes worthy of offerings.”

Glosses

“Because space is a nonexistent thing, Subhūti”‍—

like space, it is not truly real in a form you can apprehend, and not not truly real in a form that cannot be apprehended.

“Because all dharmas are equally nonapprehendable, Subhūti”‍—

all dharmas are equally imaginary [F.205.a] with a nature that cannot be apprehended.

“Because of not having a name and body”‍—

this means formless dharmas and form dharmas are not in the form of names.

“Because the movement of breath in and out is unfindable”‍—

this is because upon analysis there is no movement of breath in and out because the body is empty like space.

“Because applied and sustained thought is unfindable”‍—

it says this because the two, applied and sustained thought, occasion words, because it is said, “Having applied their mind and thought in a sustained way earlier, later on they deliver a speech.”

“Because the feeling, perception, volitional factors, and consciousness aggregates are unfindable.”

Because they have no form they are in their nature just a collection of names.

“Because all phenomena do not go away.”

Because all phenomena are separated from going.

“Because all dharmas cannot be seized.”

Dharmas do not seize dharmas, so it

“is not stolen.”

“Because all dharmas have come to an end in extreme purity.”

Because all dharmas appear as an extreme purity they do not arise and are not stopped, and hence appear to have come to an end.

“Because all dharmas do not arise and do not stop.”

All dharmas are empty. They appear as not arising and as not stopping.

“Because death and rebirth are unfindable.”

It knows that the time of deaths and rebirths appear based on false imagination, not ultimately.

“Because all dharmas are indestructible in their nature.”

It is indestructible because the nature of all dharmas is suchness, so it does not change.

“Because a dream that has been seen cannot be apprehended.”

Just as that thing existent in a dream which has been seen in a dream [F.205.b] cannot be apprehended and does not exist, so too all phenomena are there as nonexistent things.

“This is a perfection without purification… because the presence of defilement cannot be apprehended.”

There can be purification if there is defilement, but all phenomena are pure in their nature so there is no defilement and there is no purification either.

“This is a perfection that does not stand… because all phenomena cannot be apprehended.”

Because all phenomena cannot be apprehended they therefore are not apprehended as standing anywhere.

“Because it is a full awakening to all dharmas as unmistaken suchness.”

All phenomena are the intrinsic nature of unmistaken suchness, which is to say, they make manifest that unmistaken intrinsic nature so they make available the wisdom that knows “all phenomena are calm.”

“Because the causal sign of greed cannot be apprehended.”

There is no causal sign that is a basis to become attached to.

“Because hate is not real.”

Because the causal sign that serves as a cause of hate does not exist.

“This perfection of wisdom is a perfection that is not a means of measurement… because all phenomena do not fully arise.”

It might be supposed that all phenomena are caused to fully arise on account of a means of measurement. But this perfection of wisdom does not see the emergence of a basis for the measurement of any phenomenon, therefore it is “not a means of measurement.”

“Because all phenomena are distinct.”

Because all dharmas are isolated.

“Because the measure of all phenomena cannot be apprehended.”

There might be a means of measurement were there something to be measured. But because a means of measurement of all phenomena, were there to be something measured, cannot be apprehended and does not exist, therefore something to be measured does not exist either.

“Because all phenomena are without attachment like space.” [F.206.a]

All phenomena, similar to space, are without attachment.

“This… is an impermanent perfection

Because all dharmas are unproduced, like horns on a rabbit and so on, they are not destroyed. Therefore, they do not exist. They are impermanent because they are not existent things, because scripture says that “the meaning of a nonexistent thing is the meaning of impermanence.”

“Because all phenomena are not suitable to be clung to.”

All phenomena are not suitable to be clung to, or to be stayed with, or to be made use of, so it is suffering.

“This… is a perfection of the empty… because an intrinsic nature of all phenomena cannot be apprehended.”

Those intrinsic natures‍—easily breakable, experience, and so on‍—do not ultimately exist. Therefore, those phenomena are empty of those intrinsic natures.

“This… is a selfless perfection… because all phenomena are not settled down on.”

The “phenomena,” form and so on, do not exist. They are therefore not suitable to be “settled down on.” Since that is the case, the nonexistence of all the phenomena is selflessness. Even though there is no difference in the meaning of emptiness and selflessness, based on being designated they are differentiated. “The empty” is being without something else. To illustrate, you say “an empty pot” when it has no water. Similarly, because they are without an intrinsic nature, their “defining mark” and so on, those phenomena are thought of as “empty.” As for “selfless,” it is the nonexistence of the phenomena, like, to illustrate, the magically produced illusion of elephants and so on. You say “empty” when you want to say those phenomena are separated from their defining marks and so on. You say “selfless” when you want to say that “they are not existent”‍—they are not existent things.

“Because all phenomena [F.206.b] have no causal sign.”

Given that a causal sign is a defining mark and there is no such defining mark they are

“without a defining mark.”

“Because the emptiness of emptiness cannot be apprehended.”

This means there is just no second emptiness in emptiness. The empty is said to be “emptiness.” An “empty” that is a different attribute called “emptiness” does not exist at all.

“The great emptiness cannot be apprehended.”

“Great emptiness” is said of the immensity of just the nonexistence of forms for all the directions. A different attribute called “the great emptiness” does not exist at all.

You should construe them all like this as well.

“This… is a perfection that is the emptiness of a basic nature… because compounded and uncompounded dharmas cannot be apprehended.”

This means if compounded and uncompounded dharmas were findable, their basic nature would be not empty, but all dharmas are empty, hence their “emptiness of a basic nature.”

“This… is a perfection that is giving… because miserliness cannot be apprehended.”

The miserliness that cannot be apprehended in the perfection of wisdom is the mark of giving.

You should construe the others like this as well.

“This… is a perfection that is the ten powers… because all the aspects of all dharmas cannot be apprehended.”

All the aspects of all dharmas would fall within the range of the ten knowledges‍—the power that is knowledge of the possible and impossible and so on. But they are not within their range, they are unreal aspects. So, because those aspects do not ultimately exist, therefore the aspects that serve as the objects of the ten powers are seen not to exist, hence it is “a perfection that is the ten powers.”

“Because the knowledge of path aspects is not cowed.”

The knowledge of path aspects of bodhisattvas [F.207.a] is not cowed by any phenomenon. Therefore, the knowledge of path aspects, which in its nature is uncowed by anything, is

“a perfection that is fearlessness.”

“Because knowledge is totally unattached and unimpeded.”

Because the knowledge of bodhisattvas is totally unattached and unimpeded, therefore it is

“a perfection that is detailed and thorough knowledge.”

“Because it has gone beyond all śrāvaka and pratyekabuddha attributes.”

Because śrāvakas and so on do not have this perfection of wisdom it is therefore counted as

“a perfection that is the… attributes of a buddha.”

“This… is a perfection that is the realized one… because what has been spoken by all the buddhas is reality.”

By a creative explanation, the realized one is so called because of having spoken thus, which is to say, the perfection of wisdom that observes thus‍—what has been spoken by all the buddhas‍—is called the “perfection that is the realized one.”

“This… is a perfection that is self-originated… because it is in control of all dharmas.”

Because all dharmas are under its control, therefore it predominates among all dharmas so it is a “self-originated perfection.”

Explanation of Chapters 39 to 42

Absence of a practice and signs of completion

5.424It is easy to explain Śatakratu’s praise passage, the elder Śāriputra passage, and the Lord’s rejoicing passage so they are just as they are in the Sūtra.

“When practicing the perfection of wisdom [they] do not stand in form, and when they do not stand in form they practice the yoga of form.”

The bodhisattvas’ transcendental knowledge of a knower of path aspects does not stand in any phenomenon, therefore just that not standing is their “practice of the yoga.”

“Furthermore, Kauśika, they do not practice the yoga of a bodhisattva’s form, and [F.207.b] thus not practicing the yoga of form like that, they practice the yoga of form.”

The earlier subsection of the passage refutes standing; here it refutes what is established by not standing.

“Do not apprehend form as past,”

and so on, teaches that they do not apprehend it in any of the three time periods.

“Śāriputra, it is because the depth of form is not form.”

It says this because “the depth” is falsely imagined, so form itself ultimately does not exist.

5.429The interpretation of the depth subsection, hard to fathom subsection, and immeasurable subsection; the Śatakratu passage and obtaining a prediction; the wilderness analogy, the spring analogy, and the pregnant woman analogy; and the passage on taking care of and teaching others is easy.

5.430There are two signs that

“the meditation on the perfection of wisdom… is completed”‍—

when they

“do not see… an increase… or a decline in”

all dharmas, and when they see the marks of dharmas.

5.431That the inconceivable has been taught and that they do not conceptualize the inconceivable are also signs that

“the meditation on the perfection of wisdom… is completed.”

5.432The sign that they are practicing the six perfections is that they

“do not mentally construct and do not conceive of form, do not mentally construct and do not conceive of a causal sign of form, and do not mentally construct and do not conceive of an intrinsic nature of form.”

With the meditative stabilization on emptiness they do not mentally construct dharmas; with the meditative stabilization on signlessness they do not mentally construct causal signs; and with the meditative stabilization on wishlessness they do not mentally construct an intrinsic nature. They do not conceptualize falsely imagined phenomena; they do not conceptualize dependent phenomena.

5.433Earlier it said that it is deep because of the depth of suchness; here, having superimposed the mark of suchness onto form and so on, and saying that it is deep, is because of the various dispositions of trainees.

“Lord, the perfection of wisdom is an aggregate of the purity [F.208.a] of all dharmas”

means it is pure and it is the aggregate of all dharmas.

“Lord, that… would not give rise to many hindrances would be amazing.”

It says this having in mind that there are many obstacles to something excellent.

5.436Next, the explanation of the teaching about the merit from reciting the good Dharma is easy.

Last of the five hundreds

“During the last of the ‘five hundreds’ ”‍—

a “five hundred” incorporates five one hundreds. It is said that the time the doctrine of the Tathāgata lasts is five thousand years. If you break up and subdivide the five thousand years into five-hundred-year periods, there are ten five hundreds. For these there are ten chapters: first, three chapters (the Understanding chapter, Practice chapter, and Scripture chapter). There the Understanding chapter is again subdivided into three chapters (the Worthy One chapter, Non-returner chapter, and stream enterer chapter); the Practice chapter too is subdivided into three chapters (the Insight chapter, Meditative Stabilization chapter, and Morality chapter); and the Scripture chapter is also subdivided into three (the Abhidharma chapter, Sūtra chapter, and Vinaya chapter). These nine chapters and the Mere Signs chapter are the ten chapters.

5.438There, each of the ten chapters lasts five hundred years, so, the ten chapters comprise ten five hundreds that become the five thousand years.

5.439There, in the first of all the five hundreds are the worthy ones; in the second five hundred, the non-returners; in the third, the stream enterers; in the fourth five hundred, insight; in the fifth, meditative stabilization; in the sixth, morality; in the seventh, the abhidharma; in the eighth, the sūtras; in the ninth, the vinaya; and in the tenth five hundred, a mere sign. It is just this that is called “the last of the five hundreds.”

5.440Some say “the measure of a human lifespan can be one hundred years. There in the earlier fifty years the color, shape, strength, [F.208.b] intellect and so on increase, and in the later fifty years they wane. Similarly, the end of the time period, the time of the waning of the teaching, is like the later fifty years and hence is labeled ‘the last of the five hundreds.’ ”

5.441*When formulated like that, the duration of the lasting of the Tathāgata’s teaching is two thousand five hundred years. The two commentaries appear to be contradictory. Śāntarakṣita’s intention is that the good Dharma lasts from the Worthy One chapter up to the Meditative Stabilization chapter. There is the explanation in the explanatory tradition and there is this other expanation. In general there is agreement on five thousand years.*

5.442The explanation of the teaching of all the benefits of the good qualities is easy.

Explanation of the work of Māra

5.443The work of Māra:

“When it takes a really long time to have the confidence to speak”

it becomes an impediment; and,

“when the confidence to speak happens too fast,”

bodhisattvas become arrogant and act with disrespect. There is

“yawning”

and being arrogant;

“laughing”‍—

laughing or joking with each other when the Dharma is being explained; and

“fooling with each other”

when they make the other want to laugh.

“Attached to each other as friends”‍—

they do it to protect each other’s minds; they do not do it out of faith. There is also the reading “attached to other readings while not knowing what the meaning is.”

“While if they yawn while… taking it up”‍—

in regard to these five, yawning and so on, the earlier five are when they are writing it out; here it is when they are taking it up in their minds.

“As many thoughts as they have to leave, they appropriate that many eons of practice.”

They have to practice the yoga of the perfection of wisdom again for as many eons as the thoughts they have to leave, because they do not reach maturity for that many eons, since their thought is confused.

“Those… would reject the root of the tree of the knowledge of all aspects.”

To illustrate, if you get rid of the root of a tree you will not get

“the branches, petals, and leaves”

as the outcome you aim for. Similarly, without the tree of the knowledge of all aspects you will not get śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas that are like the branches and leaves and so on. That is the meaning.

5.448Connect this here in the same way: it is just as

“a dog might spurn”

its master’s tasty

“food”

that is easy to get, and go looking for

“food from a servant”

that it either does not get, or only gets a bit of.

5.449Similarly, connect this in the same way: it is just as when

“somebody finds an elephant,”

rejects it, and makes the absurd statement, “I am interested in

‘the track’

of the elephant, I am not interested in the elephant.” [F.209.a]

5.450The illustration of

“the hoofprint left by a bull,”

and the analogy of the

“contractor who wants to build a Vaijayanta palace”

who looks for a

“celestial mansion circle,”

thinking a Vaijayanta palace is also just that measure, are similar.

“Subhūti, the perfection of wisdom does not give confidence to speak”

because it does not conceptualize;

“is inconceivable”

because it is beyond the range of speculative thought;

“is without production and without cessation”

because it is thoroughly established as a final outcome that does not alter;

“is without defilement and without purification”

because it is pure in its basic nature;

“is without distraction”

because it is always in meditative equipoise;

“is not something that can be spoken out loud”

because it is self-reflexive analytic knowledge;

“is not part of a conversation”

because it is beyond language;

“is not something that can be talked about”

because it is beyond applied thought and sustained thought; and

“cannot be apprehended”

because it is separated from apprehending anything as an existent thing. If they

“form the notion ‘this deep perfection of wisdom is not an existent thing,’ Subhūti, they should know that this too is the work of Māra.”

If they explain the perfection of wisdom with the notion that it does not exist, there is the fault of not honoring it.

“The perfection of wisdom is without letters,”

because it is not something that can be spoken out loud and is not something that can be heard.

5.462The rest of the works of Māra are easy to understand.

Revealing this world

“Subhūti… this deep perfection of wisdom gives birth to a tathāgata’s ten powers,”

and so on, teaches that it gives birth to the ultimate tathāgata because it gives birth to the buddhadharmas.

“Reveals this world”‍—

it says it “reveals this world” in eleven forms: it reveals the world of the aggregates; it reveals that the basic nature of all dharmas cannot be designated or apprehended; [F.209.b] it reveals the thought activities of all beings and the divisions and so on; it reveals the suchness of all phenomena; it reveals that the mark of all phenomena is no mark; it reveals the power of being cognizant of what has been done, and acknowledging what has been done, and the nonexistence of one who knows and the nonexistence of one who sees; it reveals all unseen dharmas; and it reveals the power of one who knows, one who understands, one who is aware of, and one who reveals a description of the world as empty, and who reveals this world as inconceivable and isolated, without an interior and so on, and at peace on account of the nonexistence of a perception of this world or the world beyond.

5.465Among those,

“Subhūti, the Tathāgata has said that the five aggregates are the world… the perfection of wisdom does not reveal those five aggregates as being destroyed, nor does it reveal them as being really destroyed.”

The perfection of wisdom sees only the suchness of the aggregates, not the falsely imagined aggregates. Take “destroyed” and “really destroyed” as getting used up and becoming ruined.

“If even this very perfection of wisdom does not exist and is not apprehended in this deep perfection of wisdom, how could form ever exist or be apprehended?”

This means that if even this very perfection of wisdom does not appear to the nonconceptual perfection of wisdom when an apprehended and an apprehender have become equally the same, it goes without saying form and so on do not.

“Subhūti, the tathāgatas know those collected thoughts and distracted thoughts of those beings for what they are through the true nature of dharmas.”

To “know collected thoughts and distracted thoughts” is to know collected thoughts and distracted thoughts as not what they are, as nonexistent, by seeing the true dharmic nature of thought. [F.210.a] Then it says,

“How do they know those collected thoughts and distracted thoughts?”

5.468And it teaches that they are

“inexhaustible… free from greed… cessation,”

and so on, saying to “know those thoughts” is to know all thoughts as being in their true dharmic nature “inexhaustible,” in their true dharmic nature

“an abandonment,”

and

“isolated”

from an intrinsic nature.

5.469Then, with

“Subhūti, a mind that is greedy is not a mind as it really is,”

it teaches that they know a thought that is greedy and so on.

5.470Here, in regard to

“know a greedy thought… for what it is, a greedy thought,”

if there is such knowledge of greed, thought, and greediness, then the “greedy” thought is not a phenomenon as it really is. A phenomenon “as it really is,” a thought that is a phenomenon “as it really is,” is a phenomenon isolated from an intrinsic nature. The Tathāgata has an extremely pure consciousness and has not grasped thought, or greed, or a dharma that is a mental factor, or being greedy and so on, because falsely imagined temporary states when there are greedy thoughts and so on do not exist at all. Therefore, the passage here should be understood as follows: a thought that is greedy is not as it really is, is not a truth, so, having abandoned it, they “know it” in the form it is really in. That is the meaning.

5.471So it again teaches that they know a mind free from greed for what it is, with

“therefore, Subhūti, a mind that is free from greediness is not a mind that has greediness.”

5.472What is this teaching? [F.210.b] Minds free from greed and minds with greediness are not only ultimately nonexistent, you cannot even say about a temporary state of a falsely imagined nature free from greed that “it is greedy,” because the two‍—free from greed and greedy‍—are impossible in one thought; two thoughts do not arise simultaneously. Therefore, not only is it unreal, but even in a falsely imagined form a mind free from greed cannot properly be “greedy,” so it says “free from greediness.” Similarly, connect this with

“free from hatred… and free from a confusion.”

“An inclusive thought… as an inclusive thought”

and

“Subhūti, here the tathāgatas know that a thought of those… beings is not inclusive, … that a thought is not constricted,”

and so on, teach as follows: They do not view this one’s thought as “inclusive,” or another’s thought as “constricted”; that this one’s thought

“increases,”

or another’s thought

“is reduced”;

or that this one’s thought

“pervades,”

or another’s thought

“does not pervade.”

5.474It teaches that they

“know, thanks to this deep perfection of wisdom,”

that that inclusive thought is a nonexistent thing, that it is does not exist, and that it is without an intrinsic nature; they thoroughly know

“an inclusive thought as an inclusive thought,”

knowing it

“for what it is,”

a nonexistent thing.

5.475Similarly, with

“that has become great.”

5.476Here also,

“Subhūti, here the tathāgatas view a thought of other beings or other persons as not coming, as not going, as not lasting, as not arising, and as not stopping,”

and so on, explains this. “Great” here is in the sense of arising, in the sense of lasting [F.211.a] for an extended period, and in the sense of changing into something else marked by lasting and having an extended period. As for “has become,” it is in the sense of “coming and going.” A tathāgata’s wisdom does not view it like that; it views it solely as the nonexistence of an intrinsic nature. Since this is the case, it is saying that where “a thought has become big” its becoming big does not exist, so they “thoroughly know” of it that it is a nonexistent thing.

“Immeasurable thought”

is explained by saying they

“view that thought of… beings… as not there, as not interrupted, as not fixed, and as not not fixed,”

and so on. This teaches the following: You can suppose it is “immeasurable” in the sense that it is pervasive or is a basic element. The tathāgatas do not view an immeasurable thought like that; rather, they view all thoughts as having no fixed position and being without a foundation. When they view it like that, they

“know an immeasurable thought… for what it is.”

“[They] view that thought… as without a mark and separated from an intrinsic nature.”

Because it has no intrinsic nature and no mark it cannot show itself, so they view it as

“a thought… that does not show itself.”

“Those thoughts… are not even visible to the five eyes”‍—

a thought forms, so take it as falsely imagined; furthermore, because that does not exist in itself, it is a nonexistent thing, so it does not appear to the eyes of those who see true reality. Hence,

“an invisible thought.”

That is the meaning.

[B21]

“Thoughts that are clear, dull, abridged, and expanded”‍—

they know “clear” thoughts in the sense of those of tīrthikas who make philosophical errors grasping at permanence; the “dull” in the sense of those grasping at nihilism; the “abridged” in the sense of those who over-negate; and the “expanded” in the sense of those who over-reify [F.211.b]

“for what they are.”

“Based on form”

explains arising based on the five aggregates.

“Refers to form”

means a thought has “been emitted” with form as its reference point, and they have settled down on it and say, “I am form.”

“Connect this in the same way also with”

refers to

“feeling”

and so on.

5.484Similarly, having taught that thoughts that have arisen from wrong views have “been emitted” and so on, now, to reveal those that have been emitted and so on from conceptual thought constructions, it says,

“Furthermore, Subhūti, thanks to this deep perfection of wisdom the tathāgatas know form. How do they know form? They know it just as they know suchness‍—without distortion, without conceptualization,”

and so on. In six different ways they know all phenomena in their nature as “suchness.” There they know that they are “without distortion,” because of unaltered suchness; “without conceptualization,” because of unmistaken suchness;

“without a causal sign,”

because of the very limit of reality;

“without effort,”

because there is no illumination;

“without thought construction,”

because they are isolated from an intrinsic nature;

“and without apprehending anything,”

because of the nonexistence of an intrinsic nature.

5.489Now, because all phenomena with outflows and without outflows, that are ordinary and extraordinary, and all superior persons and all superior dharmas, even the tathāgatas, are not broken apart in suchness, with

“therefore, Subhūti, the suchness of thoughts… that are clear, dull, abridged, and expanded is the suchness of the aggregates, constituents, sense fields, dependent origination,”

and so on, it reveals that as suchness, their intrinsic nature, all phenomena are not different.

Explanation of Chapters 43 to 45

Marks

“Gods, this perfection of wisdom [F.212.a] is deep because it is marked by emptiness.”

The separation from falsely imagined phenomena that are the objects in the range of fools is “marked by emptiness.” The absence and total extinguishing of the causal signs of mental construction and conceptual thought projections is

“marked by signlessness.”

5.491Not joining up later with what has been wished for, because all conceptualized wishes have been forsaken, is

“marked by wishlessness.”

5.492The uncompounded state is

“marked by the absence of production and stopping”

because all thought constructions conceiving of cause, condition, and result are severed. It is separated from production and so on. The absolutely purified state when there is a transformation of the basis through the four transformations is

“marked by the absence of defilement and the absence of purification.”

5.493Like an illusion, a dream, a mirage, and so on, which are not thoroughly established and are nonexistent, a nonexistent thing is

“marked by the nonexistence of an intrinsic nature.”

5.494What has no standing anywhere, like space separated from all false imagination and thought construction, ultimately inexpressible, is

“marked by the absence of a foundation.”

5.495Because a prior limit, a later limit, and a middle have been abandoned, the natural state of nirvāṇa separated from an existent thing and a nonexistent thing is

“marked by the absence of annihilation and of going on and on forever.”

5.496The nondual state separated from difference and unity is

“marked by the absence of unity and the absence of difference”

because all conceptualizations of difference have stopped. The state separated from coming and going is

“marked by the absence of coming and absence of going”

because all effort has been abandoned, illuminating does not exist, and an act of doing something does not exist. Because everything is totally separated [F.212.b] from all of its own characteristic marks, the place constituted by the unmarked is

“marked by space.”

5.497Furthermore,

“the Tathāgata uses the conventional label as an ordinary conventional term, but not as an ultimate one”

says it is marked by being inexpressible.

“Gods, the world with its gods and humans cannot alter those marks”

is saying that it is marked as thoroughly established because it is thoroughly established as being without alteration and thoroughly established as being without error.

“Gods, a mark does not make a mark into something else”

means suchness does not disturb suchness.

“A mark does not know a mark.”

Suchness does not know suchness, just as space does not know space.

“A mark does not know the absence of a mark.”

Suchness does not know a falsely imagined phenomenon, just as space does not know a rabbit’s horns.

“The absence of a mark does not know a mark.”

A falsely imagined phenomenon does not know suchness, just as a rabbit’s horns do not know space.

“And the absence of a mark does not know the absence of a mark.”

A falsely imagined phenomenon does not know a falsely imagined phenomenon, just as a rabbit’s horns do not know a rabbit’s horns.

“Therefore that mark, and that absence of a mark, and also both, do not have… the intrinsic nature of that which might cause knowing.”

An intrinsic nature of perceiving does not exist because suchness is nonconceptual, effortless, and does not stir, because a falsely imagined phenomenon does not exist. “That which might make known” is consciousness and so on.

“Who might know”

is a person or a dharma.

“To whom it might be made known”

is another person or a dharma.

“Gods, those marks are not occasioned by form,”

and so on, reveals that it is marked by not occasioning anything. [F.213.a]

“Because all marks have no mark”‍—

because the aforementioned emptiness, signlessness, and so on, and all compounded and uncompounded phenomena, are marked as falsely imagined phenomena is the meaning.

“Whether the tathāgatas arise or whether the tathāgatas do not arise,”

and so on, is speaking about the defining mark of phenomena remaining in the same state.

“The element of marks simply remains as it really is, the element of no marks. A tathāgata has perfectly and fully awakened to that.”

It is called “the element of no marks” because all conceptualizations of a mark are absent.

“Therefore a tathāgata is called a ‘tathāgata.’ ”

Through a creative explanation they are called “tathāgatas” because they have realized as suchness or because they have realized suchness.

“The Tathāgata has given an exposition of all marks by giving an exposition of the perfection of wisdom”

is indicating the earlier statement, “Gods, this is deep because it is marked by emptiness, it is marked by signlessness,” and so on.

“Having fully awakened to unsurpassed, perfect, complete awakening… [he] has differentiated all the marks”

means that even though they have fully awakened to such a nonconceptual ultimate they still explain the conventional marks for the benefit of beings.

“The mark of form is something that can show itself,”

and so on, teaches the conventional defining marks.

Appreciation and gratitude

5.514[The tathāgatas]

“have appreciation and a feeling of gratitude”

for this [perfection of wisdom]. They think ‘We have done this and we have asserted this’ because they realize what they have done and achieved.

“Fully awakened to all dharmas as not done and not changed”‍— [F.213.b]

they have “fully awakened” to dharmas constituted by what has not been done‍—that nobody has done. As for “not changed,” they have fully awakened without distortion; they know them as unchanging.

“Because there is no body”‍—

this is the nonexistence of a body, the nonexistence of an interior, formlessness. Therefore, Subhūti, the nonexistence of a body, this interior, is

“the Tathāgata’s cognizance of what has not been done, and acknowledgment of what has not been done.”

5.517He is cognizant of what has not been done because he is cognizant of the mark of uncompounded phenomena.

“Furthermore, Subhūti, thanks to the perfection of wisdom, on account of the force of ultimately not originating, the unmade transcendental knowledge has engaged with all dharmas.”

5.518“On account of the force of ultimately not originating” means based on the ultimate being unproduced and unoriginated. It is teaching that the transcendental knowledge of the tathāgatas is the mark of the thoroughly established dharma body and hence is “unmade,” so the Tathāgata cognizes what has not been done.

“Lord, when all dharmas are not producers and are not seers”

is teaching that there has been no production so there is no producer, therefore it is not feasible that

“the perfection of wisdom gives birth”;

it does not cause seeing so there is no seer, so it is not feasible that it

“reveals the world.”

“Exactly so, Subhūti, exactly so!”

and so on is teaching

“because all dharmas are empty, ring hollow, are in vain… are not producers and are not revealers,”

that it is true, and in the ordinary world there is nobody who knows such a reality. It is teaching “Still, he, thanks to the perfection of wisdom, has fully awakened to this reality as it actually is, therefore it has given birth to him and reveals the world.” He intends this as a statement of praise.

“It reveals it, moreover, because form is not seen.”

Because he does not see form, therefore it reveals it. Were he to have seen form, [F.214.a] he would have seen reality imperfectly, like somebody with a visual distortion, so it also would not reveal it.

“Subhūti, when a consciousness with form as objective support does not arise”‍—

when a consciousness with bristly strands of hair and so on as its objective support arises in somebody with a visual distortion, and then later on does not arise, you say sight has become clear. Similarly, here too, there is the locution

“it reveals”

because “consciousness and so on with form as objective support does not arise.”

“Reveals… [that the world] is inconceivable”‍—

because suchness is beyond the range of speculative thought.

“Subhūti, form is inconceivable, incomparable, immeasurable, uncountable, and equal to the unequaled because it does not appear.”

“Form” does not appear. And why? Falsely imagined form does not exist, like a rabbit’s horns, so “it does not appear”; the true dharmic nature of form cannot be apprehended by any consciousness so “it does not appear,” and because it thus does not appear it is therefore “inconceivable,” “incomparable,” “immeasurable,” and so on.

5.525The teaching about “inconceivable” and so on is easy to understand as found in the scripture. In it,

“all mental and mental factor dharmas are not apprehended”

means cannot be grasped by “all mental and mental factor dharmas,” so it says that “it does not appear.”

5.526Why does Subhūti, with

“it is made available to serve a great purpose,”

and so on, again introduce an exposition of a part of the text that has already been explained? He says that in order to gather a retinue, and also because, having introduced just that, he wants a greater enthusiasm. Earlier it taught that it benefits the practice prior to a buddha; now it is teaching that it does the work of a buddha.

“This deep [F.214.b] perfection of wisdom is made available so that you do not hold on to and do not settle down on form.”

Because from seeing the perfection of wisdom they do not on account of craving come to “hold on to” and on account of a view “settle down on form” and so on‍—the dharmas‍—therefore it is put into words as “this deep perfection of wisdom is made available so you do not hold on to and do not settle down,” which is to say, it teaches that it is for a truly great purpose.

“Subhūti, I too…”

He is saying he himself is in full control.

“That knowledge and abandonment of faith-followers, dharma-followers, up to worthy ones, and pratyekabuddhas, is the forbearance of bodhisattvas who have gained forbearance for the nonproduction of all dharmas”

teaches that a bodhisattva’s wisdom is greater. Just by merely having entered into the eighth level and gained the forbearance for dharmas that are not produced, the knowledges and the abandonments of all afflictions that are the result of the path to all śrāvaka and pratyekabuddha worthy ones are completed. Their knowledge and abandonment do not exceed that forbearance. From here the bodhisattvas are totally without afflictions. Up to here the bodhisattvas described as those “who have gained forbearance for the nonproduction of dharmas” are the ones without afflictions.

“Before they had gone very far disappeared”‍—

this explanation teaches that their work has been completed.

5.531Then the elder Subhūti, to engender respect in persons with perfect belief in this explanation and so on, asks about their birth. It says,

“Where did they die, Lord, the bodhisattva great beings who have taken birth here and believe in this deep perfection of wisdom the moment they hear it?”

5.532and so on. Here it also gives an exposition of the three bodhisattvas that make up the bright side and the three that make up the dark side. Those who

“have died a human and taken birth as a human” [F.215.a]

are good. The second who,

“having died in other buddhafields, take birth”

among humans are good. The third who

“have died among the Tuṣita gods and taken birth here”

5.533are also good. As for the three on the dark side, there are those who are not endowed with having

“heard or asked about it in the past [and] have taken birth here,”

but do not believe in the explanation; the second, who are also not endowed with having heard and so on, hear it here just because of faith, but

“get robbed”

and become uncertain; and the third, who have asked about this explanation in the past just because of faith but still are not endowed with taking it up and so on, and who later fall into

“the Śrāvaka and the Pratyekabuddha”

Vehicles.

5.534Here the analogy of

“the boat on the ocean,”

the analogy of

“the pot,”

and then the analogies of

“the ship”

and

“the very old man”

are easy to understand as found in the scripture.

5.535To teach that when they do not have such a perfection of wisdom and skillful means they fall into the two vehicles, and that when they do have them they reach unsurpassed, complete awakening, Subhūti asks how it is that they do not have those two, and asks how it is that they do not not have those two.

5.536At that time the Lord puts into words that not having the six perfections is because of the power of apprehending and because of the power of pride, and that they fall to one of the two deficient levels. He teaches that those who do not apprehend the six perfections and have no pride

“reach unsurpassed, complete awakening.”

“It is because the perfection of giving has gone to the near shore.”

The side that is the knowledge of path aspects of bodhisattvas‍—the absence of conceptualization‍—is “gone to the near shore.” The side that is the knowledge of all aspects of buddhas is “gone to the farther shore,” because it is the perfection [F.215.b] of the absence of conceptualization. Therefore, it says

“knows the near shore and knows the farther shore.”

5.538Then the section of the text to do with skillful means is in just that sequence as well.

How those new to the bodhisattva vehicle train

5.539Having thus heard that those who do not have the perfection of wisdom and skillful means fall into the two vehicles, thinking, “How, then, do they become those who have newly set out in the vehicle and are beginning the work,” Subhūti asks,

“Lord, how should bodhisattva great beings beginning the work train in the perfection of wisdom?”

5.540And the Lord, because those who are beginning the work definitely have to have spiritual friends, therefore teaches that they

“should attend on spiritual friends.”

“You should not hold as an absolute,”

and

“you should not produce a longing for form”

means do not, because of conceptual views and attachment to an ultimate, set your hopes on something.

Nine qualities of the doers of the difficult

5.542Then the elder Subhūti said,

“Lord, those bodhisattvas who want unsurpassed, perfect, complete awakening, even while all phenomena are empty of their own marks, are doers of the difficult.”

5.543In that context the Lord makes nine statements:

“ ‘May I for the world’s benefit and happiness… become the protector… refuge… resting place… final ally… island… leader and… support. May I become the benefit and happiness of the world: its protector, refuge, resting place, final ally, island, leader, and support,”

which he then explains in detail, discussing each separately. “The benefit” is the intention to liberate beings from all forms of life and establish them in a place without fear; “the happiness” is the intention to liberate them from suffering and establish them in happiness; “the protector” is the intention to teach the doctrine in order to protect them from suffering; “the refuge” is the intention to liberate those afflicted by suffering from that suffering and establish them in the nirvāṇa without any aggregates remaining; [F.216.a] “the resting place” is the intention to explain the doctrine in order that they will have no attachment; “the final ally” is the intention to explain by way of all phenomena, form and so on, the father shore of phenomena; “the island” is the intention to explain the doctrine in a delimited form like an island that is circumscribed; “the leader” is the intention, because of great compassion for beings, to explain the doctrine that leads to nirvāṇa; and “the support” is the intention to understand analytically the places supporting life that are, in brief, eighty-five. Those are the successive contents of the passage.

“Lord, how are all phenomena not mingled?”

During saṃsāra, when the falsely imagined and the thoroughly established are as one, are there not broken apart, at that time, when the two are undifferentiable, they are “mingled.” When there has been a gradual transformation through the force of listening, thinking, and meditating in harmony with the extremely pure dharma-constituent as cause, at that time, when the two‍—the falsely imagined and the thoroughly established‍—have become differentiated and a transformation into the extremely pure, stainless, intrinsic nature has come about, they are “not mingled.”

“The nonconnection… the nonproduction… the noncessation,”

and so on, are synonymous with just that.

“The farther shore of form is not form.”

This is saying that suchness is the farther shore of form because in it the mark of form has been eliminated. Therefore, that suchness that serves as the farther shore of form is not the intrinsic nature of falsely imagined form.

“Subhūti, as form really is, so too are all dharmas.”

It says this because all phenomena have suchness as their intrinsic nature, not because they are connected with it.

5.549What is intended by,

“Will not bodhisattva great beings have indeed fully awakened [F.216.b] to the knowledge of all aspects?”

It intends to say that if all dharmas are as form really is, well then, with the clear realization of form comes the clear realization of all dharmas and hence the attainment of the knowledge of all aspects.

“Lord, on the farther shore of form there is no thought construction whatsoever.”

Were there to be a thought construction of form in the suchness that is the farther shore of form, then, with the realization of the farther shore of form there would not be the realization of all phenomena, there would just be the realization of form alone. But, because it is suchness, there is no thought construction of form on the farther shore of form, hence the realization of just that is established as the realization of all phenomena.

Because phenomena are seen to be like islands, they are “islands.”

“Form is delimited by a past and a future.”

Ultimately form has never arisen in the past and ultimately will never arise in the future because it does not exist during all periods of time.

“Subhūti, that delimitation of all phenomena by a past and a future… is calm, it is sublime.”

This is teaching that the nonapprehension of all phenomena, because of the emptiness of time, is the ultimate, is viable.

“Form has space as its way of being.”

This means ultimate form, like space, is untainted and unchanging.

“The emptiness of form does not go and does not come”

means the emptiness of form does not go anywhere, even when together with thought construction, and also does not come from anywhere later on when there is no thought construction.

“Subhūti, all phenomena have emptiness as their way of being”

means they have emptiness as their intrinsic nature.

“Because they do not pass beyond that way of being” [F.217.a]

is saying that the intrinsic nature is not removed from those phenomena. They

“have the unborn and unreal as their way of being”‍—

they are not born‍—have not arisen‍—through the force of causes and conditions, and are not real things because in their intrinsic nature they are not produced.

“Subhūti, all phenomena have the limitless”‍—

they are not destroyed so they are “limitless”; they are immeasurable, so they are

“boundless.”

5.558Alternatively, they are “limitless” because they do not go on and on forever and are not annihilated, and “boundless” because they are not embodied. They

“have the absence of being taken away from and the absence of being added to as their way of being.”

5.559“The absence of being taken away from” is because there is no over-negation of what exists; “the absence of being added to” is because there is no over-reification of what does not exist. They

“have not going and not coming as their way of being.”

5.560They are “not coming” because they have not come from anywhere, and they are “not going” because they are not going anywhere. They

“have not bringing in and not sending out as their way of being.”

5.561At the time of the action they are “not bringing in,” and at the time of karmic maturation they are not “not sending out.” They

“have not joining, not not joining, not mingling, and not not mingling as their way of being.”

5.562Even when there is thought construction the falsely imagined is not joined together with suchness; and even later when there is no thought construction it is not not joined. You should construe “not mingling and not not mingling” like this as well.

Explanation of Chapters 46 to 50

“In their intrinsic nature they are isolated from the elimination of greed,”

and so on. There is no elimination of greed and so on because they are isolated in their intrinsic nature, hence

“the tokens of greed”

and so on, the tokens of a course of conduct that is greedy and so on, the causes of greed and so on, the objective supports of greed and so on, and greed and the absence of greed and so on‍—all these dharmas have come about from mind, so it says

“that armor is not spliced with form.”

5.564This is teaching that because those dharmas, “form” and so on,

“absolutely do not exist,”

they have not been buckled with this armor, [F.217.b] having apprehended the causal signs of those phenomena. This is the armor of signlessness.

“Lord, bodhisattva great beings have not buckled on armor for the sake of only a partial number of beings.”

There is no partial number at all they have decided on, thinking, “We will place beings up to this number in nirvāṇa.”

Cultivation and disintegration

“It is not something that somebody has to meditate on,”

because there is no agent.

“It is not something that has to be meditated on somewhere,”

because an attribute that has to be cultivated is nowhere to be seen.

“It is not something that has to be meditated on somehow,”

because an attention that has to be meditated on is also not to be seen. This is

“the disintegration of meditation”

means it causes the nonexistence of meditation.

“Subhūti, you should look closely at a bodhisattva great being in this deep perfection of wisdom irreversible from progress toward awakening.”

You should look closely at irreversible great bodhisattvas‍—because of this perfection of wisdom are they irreversible, or not?

“Is the bodhisattva great being not attached to this deep perfection of wisdom?”

then teaches the causal signs to be looked at closely. It says “to this deep perfection of wisdom,” up to

“the perfection of giving,”

up to all

“the emptinesses,”

finishing with

“the eighteen distinct attributes of a buddha,”

up to

“the knowledge of all aspects.”

So, “you should look closely” whether “the bodhisattva great beings” are “irreversible”‍—are not attached to those and do they not stand on those.

5.571Because of their disposition, about

“what others have said”

some do not perceive an essential point, some do not believe it, and some do not get attached. They do not get angry and remain in equanimity. Some, because of their disposition, are

“not separated from”

the six perfections. [F.218.a]

5.572Some, when they have heard this deep doctrine,

“do not tremble,”

and so on;

“delight in”

it more and more; and listen,

“take it up, and bear it in mind.”

5.573You should know that when they have those attributes they are irreversible from progress toward awakening.

“Should think carefully about this deep perfection of wisdom”‍—

“think carefully” with special insight during clear realization‍—

“with a mindstream inclined to emptiness, tending to emptiness, and heading to emptiness.”

5.575Those three statements are governed by small, middling, and big. It means they should think carefully, having come to a clear realization, through the true dharmic nature of

“emptiness, signlessness, wishlessness, the unproduced, the unceasing, the absence of defilement, the absence of purification,”

and so on.

Suchness and its indivisibility

5.576Having said that,

The elder Subhūti inquired, “Lord, do they also think about form?”

and so on. “Lord, they thus think about this deep perfection of wisdom with a mind-stream inclined to emptiness. Should they similarly think about dharmas‍— form , feeling, perception, and so on‍—as well, or should they not?” Then,

the Lord said, “Subhūti, bodhisattva great beings do not think about form,”

and so on, teaches that at the time of clear realization, dharmas‍—form and so on‍—do not appear because they are nonexistent things. Therefore, full awakening is not through the dharmas

“ form , feeling,”

and so on, up to, finally,

“the knowledge of all aspects,”

but is the clear realization of their suchness. That suchness, furthermore, is not broken apart. The suchness of all dharmas, form and so on, [F.218.b] and the suchness of the knowledge of all aspects are one. It means that they “do not think about” the dharmas “form” and so on because the suchness is the same.

“Nobody has made the knowledge of all aspects, nobody has made it change. It has not come from anywhere, and is not going anywhere,”

and so on, teaches that if the knowledge of all aspects were to be something that is made; or that changes; or that comes, goes, or remains; or is in one place but not another; or has a

“number,”

and so on, it would be a falsely imagined mental image, and then it might fully awaken to dharmas, form and so on. But because it is separated from that mental image, is qualified by space, it cannot therefore fully awaken to form and so on.

5.578Then, having heard this deep doctrine,

“the gods,”

with

“Lord… this deep perfection of wisdom,”

and so on, offer praise and say suchness is the true reality in which things are not different.

“Here where the habitual idea of two does not exist is the deep state of dharmas.”

Because all dharmas have suchness as their nature, and suchness is the same, it is customary to call it one; it is not customary to call it two.

“Because space is deep,”

and so on, is just what has been explained before.

“This doctrine is not taught so form will be taken up or will not be taken up.”

Seizing on a causal sign‍—this is form‍—it is “taken up.” Over-negating in all respects‍—form does not exist‍—it is “not taken up.”

“This doctrine is not obstructed by form,”

and so on. It is not obstructed because it frames a state in harmony with all dharmas, which is to say, it is not obstructed by any dharma, form and so on, because the two extremes of over-reification and over-negation are absent. Thus, because imagined form does not exist, [F.219.a] the extreme of over-reification is absent, and because the true dharmic nature of form does exist, over-negation is absent, hence it is

“in harmony with form.”

5.583Similarly, for them all,

“the suchness of form has not come and has not gone, and, similarly, the suchness of Subhūti has not come and has not gone,”

and so on, teaches that the suchness of the Tathāgata and the suchness of Subhūti are the same. It says “has not come and has not gone” to establish that Subhūti

“takes after the Lord.”

He has not come from anywhere and does not go anywhere either.

“Just that suchness of the Tathāgata is the suchness of all dharmas, and that suchness of all dharmas is the suchness of Subhūti.”

This means they are one because suchness is the same.

“The suchness of the Tathāgata is established”

teaches that they are also one because of being marked by the establishment of dharmas.

“Is unchanging and undifferentiated”‍—

this “unchanging” teaches that it is a thoroughly established phenomenon because it is the thoroughly established phenomenon that does not alter. This “undifferentiated” teaches that it is a thoroughly established phenomenon because it is the thoroughly established phenomenon without error.

“Is not obstructed by anything”‍—

it extends over all dharmas, which is to say, it does not exist anywhere at all. Therefore, it says

“there is nothing of which that suchness is not the suchness.”

This means that it is also the suchness of all dharmas.

“And it is never not suchness”‍—

it is also suchness at all times. It

“is not two”

because it is the same basic nature,

“and cannot be divided into two”

because you cannot divide it into two types.

“Just as the suchness of the Tathāgata is not broken apart, is not different, and cannot be apprehended, so too the suchness of all dharmas is not broken apart, is not different, and cannot [F.219.b] be apprehended. Similarly, the suchness of the elder Subhūti is not broken apart, is not different, and cannot be apprehended either.”

This is teaching that the suchness of all dharmas, like the suchness of the Tathāgata, in its nature cannot be apprehended so is not different. And the suchness of the elder Subhūti, like the suchness of all dharmas, also in its nature cannot be apprehended, so it is not different either.

5.590It means that just as the suchness of the Tathāgata cannot be broken apart because it is not two, is not different because it cannot be divided into two, and cannot be apprehended because in its nature it cannot be apprehended and hence is the same, and just as the suchness of all dharmas cannot be broken apart, is not different, and in its nature cannot be apprehended, so too the suchness of Subhūti cannot be broken apart and is not different either, because in its nature it too cannot be apprehended.

“The suchness of the Tathāgata is not other than the suchness of all phenomena, and what is not other than the suchness of all phenomena is never not suchness. It is always suchness. The suchness of the elder Subhūti is like that. Therefore, since it is not something else, even though the elder Subhūti takes after the Tathāgata he does not take after him in anything.”

5.592This is teaching that just like the suchness of the Tathāgata, the suchness of all dharmas is also not broken apart because in its nature it cannot be apprehended. And just like the suchness of all dharmas, so too the suchness of the elder Subhūti is also not broken apart because, in its nature, it cannot be apprehended. The suchness of the Tathāgata is not other than the suchness of all phenomena, and what is not other than the suchness of all phenomena is never not suchness, because the suchness of all phenomena is there at all times. The suchness [F.220.a] of the Tathāgata is not other than that, so it is there at all times. Similarly, the suchness of the elder Subhūti is not other than the suchness of all dharmas so it is there at all times. Therefore, since it is there at all times, he takes after the suchness of the Tathāgata.

5.593Because he is not marked by birth, it also says “he does not take after him in anything.”

“Just as the suchness of the Tathāgata is not past, is not future, and is not present,”

and so on, teaches that just as the Tathāgata with a falsely imagined nature is incorporated in the three time periods, but suchness is not included within time, so too all dharmas with a falsely imagined nature are incorporated in the three time periods but their suchness is not included within time. In the same way the suchness of the elder Subhūti is not included within time either.

“Therefore, [he]… ‘takes after the Tathāgata.’ ”

“Gods, here you should know the suchness of the Tathāgata that is the same, through the suchness of the past that is the same.”

This is teaching: Thus, because the past suchness of all past phenomena has the same intrinsic nature it is the same, and therefore all tathāgatas are the same as well. They too have the same nature as that suchness, so they are also the same. Because of just this‍—the suchness of all the tathāgatas being the same‍—the suchness of past phenomena is therefore also the same. And why? Because the suchness of the Tathāgata and the suchness of all phenomena are the same. Through the sameness of the suchness of all phenomena you should know the sameness of the suchness of the Tathāgata. Through the sameness [F.220.b] of the suchness of the Tathāgata you should know the sameness of all past phenomena. Construe the others in the same way as well.

“On account of the sameness of the dharma of form,”

and so on, teaches just that suchness of all phenomena in detail.

“Gods, thanks to this perfect suchness the Tathāgata… gets to be called Tathāgata.”

As it has been said,

“ ‘Tathāgata,’ Subhūti, is a word for true suchness.”

Shaking of the universe

“Shook in six ways”‍—

the six are

“quaked… shook… stirred… resounded… roared… and was disturbed.”

From them, when each has been subdivided into three based on small, middling, and big, there are the eighteen great omens and, based on the six directions rising up and sinking down, there are twelve to do with the directions. I have already discussed them in the Introduction chapter.

5.599There that “shaking” and so on comes about from two causes. When powerful gods hear the good doctrine, because of the force of the pleasure and delight that arises they dance around and excite each other; and, because of the force of the true dharmic nature, even the stable world, in order to demonstrate the greatness of the doctrine, becomes a demonstration, as it were, of obedience to the true dharmic nature the tathāgatas of the past have explained.

5.600There shaking is a great quaking in one region; stirring is stirring in its entirety like a leafy tree; quaking is revolving like a fire brand swirling around; resounding is the noise of a long and drawn-out sound; disturbing is upsetting; and a roar is a piercing sound. Alternatively, the earth shakes; all the trees stir; all mountains quake; the big drum of the gods and so on resounds; the ocean and so on is disturbed; [F.221.a] and peals of thunder roar. Again, when they first occur, they appear soft and not forceful; after that they are more forceful than that; and finally they are much more forceful even than that, hence subdivided into three they become eighteen.

5.601When the directions are raised up and so on simultaneously, they become greatly disturbed, as though the boundaries have burst and been destroyed. Hence, they rise up and sink down in a sequence. There when the ground, trees, and mountains and so on in the eastern direction are greatly disturbed it looks like the eastern direction is raised up. When it looks like the eastern direction is raised up, even though the western direction remains in its natural state it looks like it has sunk down. When the ground, trees, and mountains and so on in the western direction are greatly disturbed it looks like the western direction is raised up. When it looks like the western direction is raised up, even though the eastern direction remains in its natural state it looks like it has sunk down. Connect them all like that.

Synonyms of suchness

“Does not take after form, does not take after anything other than form”‍—

since a form aggregate that might come into being is nonexistent, the elder is also nonexistent, so it is not feasible that he takes after form or takes after anything else at all other than form. And it is not feasible that he takes after

“the suchness of form,”

or takes after anything at all

“other than the suchness of form,”

because suchness is unconnected with being born as well.

“Lord, suchness, unmistaken suchness, unaltered suchness are deep,”

and so on. To be a tathāgata is suchness. To be unmistaken is unmistaken suchness. To be unaltered is unaltered suchness. It says “suchness, unmistaken suchness, and unaltered suchness” because the thoroughly established phenomenon marked by the inexpressibility of dharmas, the ultimate element, [F.221.b] is at all times suchness, is not a mistake, and does not alter. The mark of the thoroughly established phenomenon is threefold: it is a thoroughly established phenomenon that is indestructible, it is a thoroughly established phenomenon without error, and it is a thoroughly established phenomenon that does not alter. It is suchness because it is a thoroughly established phenomenon that is indestructible; it is unmistaken suchness because it is a thoroughly established phenomenon without error; and it is unaltered suchness because it is a thoroughly established phenomenon that does not alter.

5.604The three terms‍—

“true nature of dharmas, dharma-constituent, and establishment of dharmas”‍—

teach three marks: the mark of the dharma, the mark of the origin, and the mark of what is established.

5.605The state of the dharma is the attribute that is the true nature. It is in a form different from all falsely imagined and conceptualized attributes, so that which is established as the state of the dharma, dissimilar to them, and inexpressible, is expressed by the name “true nature of dharmas” because it is established.

5.606“Dharma-constituent” is said to mark the origin. The “dharmas” are the ten powers, the fearlessnesses, the distinct attributes of a buddha, and so on. The term element means cause, so, because it is the origin of the buddhadharmas, it is the “dharma-constituent,” which is to say, the “dharma body.”

5.607“Establishment of dharmas” is said to mark what is established. As it is said, “Whether the tathāgatas arise or whether the tathāgatas do not arise, the true nature of dharmas and establishment of dharmas are indeed established.” Because it is the inexpressible ultimate, the dharma that is thoroughly established, constantly there during the prior period when it is together with stains and also during the later period when there are no stains, it is the establishment of dharmas.

5.608The three terms‍—

“the certification of dharmas, the very limit of reality, and the inconceivable element”‍—

are speaking about what is marked by restriction.

5.609Among these, in “the certification of dharmas” [F.222.a] the dharmas are the perfect state dharmas, the reverse of the mistaken dharmas. The certification of them is the state in which they are secure, the state restricted to those alone. Through that state they awaken to suchness at the very first with knowledge at the Joyful level and are certified to fully awaken to unsurpassed, perfect, complete awakening, not otherwise. Therefore, it is called the “certification of dharmas” because it is the cause restricting dharmas (the perfections and so on making up a buddha) to the perfect state, because it said, “Those who have entered into the flawlessness that is a perfect state…”

5.610Alternatively, the “flaw” is craving for the dharmas. The nonexistence of the flaw is the flawlessness as explained before. The flawlessness in respect to dharmas is the “certification of dharmas.” The “certification of dharmas” (dharma flawlessness) is the dharma, by awakening to which flawed dharmas are cut off.

5.611As for “the very limit of reality,” because it is the “limit” (what stands at the limit) of “reality” (in the sense of true reality), it means the true reality that has been absolutely determined to be at the limit of reality.

5.612“The inconceivable element” is an inconceivable entity. It is not within the range of what can be inferred by any ordinary speculative thought, so the absolutely determined ultimate known by self-reflexive analytic knowledge is called the “inconceivable element.” Alternatively, it is the element of what is inconceivable, because it is the cause of the amazing, marvelous, inconceivable attributes, which is to say, through the power of the body of the attributes of the buddhas and bodhisattvas the amazing miracles appear in the world.

“In them you cannot apprehend form, you cannot apprehend the suchness of form.”

Phenomena, form and so on, do not exist, so you cannot apprehend them. As for suchness, during the period when apprehended and apprehender are in the same state, you cannot apprehend it because that which might be grasped and a grasper do not exist. [F.222.b] Alternatively, that is said because form and suchness are the terms used just during the periods together with stains and when there are no stains.

5.614An exegesis of the clear realization of the dharmas is not given because it is easy to explain.

Sixty bodhisattvas lacking in what is necessary stopped taking hold of anything and their minds were freed from contamination.

Why are those bodhisattvas lacking in what is necessary? It is because, separated from the perfection of wisdom and skillful means, those bodhisattvas practiced a practice of six perfections that can be apprehended and therefore

“did not enter into secure state,”

and so they did not make unsurpassed, perfect, complete awakening their achievement. Hence, they will actualize the very limit of reality and become worthy ones. Those who do just that meditation on

“emptiness, signlessness, and wishlessness… separated from skillful means… become śrāvakas,”

while those who are not so separated reach unsurpassed, perfect, complete awakening.

5.616He asks “why?” and is taught with the illustration of “a bird,” and there is an explanation of skillful means. It is easy to understand.

Is it hard or not hard to become awakened?

5.617Then, in regard to the statement,

“Lord,” said the elder Śāriputra, “the way I understand the meaning of what you, Lord, have said,”

it is teaching that on account of their particular lineage they have wisdom and skillful means, their nonapprehending awareness arises from that, and with those everything is achieved.

“Starting from the production of the first thought”

means starting from the first level.

“Gods! Even though I have fully awakened to all dharmas in all their aspects, still I did not apprehend any dharma that might fully awaken, or through which [F.223.a] I might fully awaken, or any dharma I might awaken to.”

This means he fully knows all the dharmas that have been brought together in a conventional state of consciousness‍—the knowledge of a knower of all aspects‍—but when they are investigated with the knowledge of the ultimate, like seeing things in a dream, he does not see any dharma that knows or that might be known.

“And why? Gods, it is because all dharmas are absolutely pure.”

Here the “pure” is just the nonexistent thing, in the sense of absolutely nonexistent.

“Lord… full awakening to unsurpassed, perfect, complete awakening is not hard.”

All dharmas are nonexistent, that is, are nonexistent things, so it is not hard to realize that a nonexistent thing is a nonexistent thing. It is hard to correctly realize the defining marks of phenomena that exist. When something is nonexistent, knowing and establishing that it is simply a nonexistent thing is not hard, even though it would be were dharmas to have such an existence and were you to have to accomplish the practice of the perfections and so on to increase the bright dharmas and stop the dark dharmas. But because those dharmas do not exist, therefore even the accomplishment of them is not hard. So, he says “full awakening… is not hard.”

5.622The elder Śāriputra’s intention in saying full awakening

“must be hard”

is this: Having understood that the intrinsic nature of all phenomena that are nonexistent things is a nonexistent thing, like space, then, if it were enough to remain silent in that case it would not be hard. But having thus come to understand that ultimately even full awakening to all dharmas does not exist, and yet, after that still making an effort at the practices of the perfections and working at becoming [F.223.b] fully awakened to all dharmas‍—that sort of thing is hard. That is what he intends.

“If bodhisattva great beings do not believe that dharmas are like space, but still,”

and so on, teaches that if they were not to “believe all dharmas,” because they are nonexistent, “are like space, but still” they could reach awakening, in that case it would be easy,

“it would not be hard.”

5.624And if that were the case, even in the world, bodhisattva great beings who have not eliminated the notion that something is being apprehended, who are practicing the six perfections, would not turn back from unsurpassed, perfect, complete awakening and would not fall to the śrāvaka or pratyekabuddha level. This is teaching that in fact those who practice while apprehending things like that will not fully awaken to unsurpassed, perfect, complete awakening, and therefore that full awakening to just those dharmas by seeing that just those dharmas are absolutely nonexistent things is hard.

[B22]

5.625Having said this, the elder Subhūti, impatient with his statement that bodhisattva great beings turn back from perfect, complete awakening, says,

“Venerable Śāriputra, what do you think, does form turn back from unsurpassed, perfect, complete awakening?”

and so on. Here again it teaches six ways it could happen: You can suppose that a dharma, form and so on, turns back; or a dharma other than form turns back; or some dharma that is the suchness of the dharmas, form and so on with stains, turns back; or some dharma other than the suchness of form and so on turns back; or absolutely pure, stainless suchness turns back; or some dharma other than that turns back. Given that it could not happen in those six ways, [F.224.a] what truly established dharma is there that will turn back? This is teaching that ultimately, therefore, there is nothing at all that turns back.

5.626With

“according to the way things are in the elder Subhūti’s teaching,”

and so on, the elder Śāriputra is saying that if there are no bodhisattvas who turn back from progress toward awakening, in that case all bodhisattvas will become buddhas; they will not turn back to become śrāvakas or pratyekabuddhas, having in mind that were that to be the case there would not be the three types of bodhisattvas where it says “the bodhisattva is threefold.” He questions Subhūti with the elder Pūrṇa’s words, and then the elder Subhūti, impatient with the words “the bodhisattva is threefold” says,

“Venerable Śāriputra, do you accept in suchness there are three bodhisattvas?”

and so on. As already explained before, from the perspective of suchness all childish ordinary persons, all noble persons, those with a pratyekabuddha’s awakening, bodhisattvas, and even buddhas are just simply one, there is no difference among them. This is explaining that if, even while all are thus just simply one, you accept that bodhisattvas are of three types, then how, given that suchness is totally without difference, can it be feasible to divide it into

“one… or two… or three”

subdivisions?

5.627Then the Lord says to the elder Subhūti that he should know that those bodhisattvas will go forth to unsurpassed, perfect, complete awakening, and in that context, for the sake of those in the retinue who want to know the defining marks of those who will succeed in going forth, Subhūti asks,

“Lord, how should bodhisattva great beings who want [F.224.b] to go forth to unsurpassed, perfect, complete awakening stand?”

5.628After that there is the explanation that they stand with a fully complete aspiration and a fully complete practice. The fully complete aspiration is from

“I must produce a balanced thought toward all beings,”

up to

“I must focus on all beings with the thought they are kinsmen, and blood relatives.”

5.629And the fully complete practice is from

“I must also stop killing,”

up to

“the good doctrine lasts, welcoming it.”

Then there are the two results from the practice: the absence of obscuration and the absence of seizing.

5.630The “I must produce a balanced thought toward all beings” is from the perspective of the suchness of all dharmas.

“Form will be without obscuration”

means they do not obscure or conceptualize form.

“Even in the past… did not seize form.”

Even in times past there was no obscuration of form and so on and they did not seize it. Having said “it is because they did not seize,” and so on, it then says,

“and why?”

asking, for the sake of those who are uncertain, how they “did not seize form” and so on.

“Because even that form that has not been seized, Subhūti, is not form.”

Bodhisattvas cause just not seizing on all dharmas to get stronger, not seizing. But even that which bodhisattvas do not seize is not the intrinsic nature of form and so on. Therefore, when not seizing has gotten stronger, form and so on will not be seized on by bodhisattvas.

Signs of bodhisattvas irreversible from progress toward awakening

5.634Then, because the elder Subhūti has earlier said that ultimately even turning back does not exist, and the three types of bodhisattva do not exist either, here, in this part of the text, [F.225.a] he asks about the signs that they are irreversible from progress toward awakening. Then the Lord gives an explanation of thirty-five signs: because irreversible bodhisattvas

see without duality in suchness;

have turned away from all;

do not honor and so on other teachers or have a doctrine that is not inferior;

are not born in a place that precludes a perfect human birth;

stop the ten unwholesome actions;

complete the ten wholesome actions;

complete all the perfections for the sake of all beings;

study the doctrine‍—the twelve branches of the sacred word‍—for the sake of all beings;

are not unsure about the deep dharmas;

are endowed with gentle and loving physical, verbal, and thinking-mind actions;

do not put up with the five obscurations;

do not have the seven bad proclivities;

act with mindfulness and a clear awareness of what they are doing;

are habitually clean and so on;

are those bodhisattvas in whom the thousands of maggot families do not arise;

have a pure body, pure speech, and a pure mind;

are not needy, are content, and rely on the qualities of the ascetic;

are not miserly and so on;

have a steady, profound intellect and so on;

are not stolen away by Māra and so on;

do not repose their confidence in others;

rely on the perfection of wisdom;

comprehend the works of Māra;

have gained forbearance for the nonproduction of dharmas;

have turned back and are irreversible from progress toward awakening;

are not affected by the results of the concentrations, meditative stabilizations, or absorptions;

do not focus on all dharmas, form and so on;

have the perfect four practices of the perfections;

do not hope the result of giving is that others become distressed and so on;

have the faculties such that the five vajra families are always shadowing them and so on;