by Red Pine
so no dharmas.’”
Even though we cannot find anything real, the perception that something is real (a dharma) has its use. This is how we live in the world. The perception that something is not real (no dharma) also has its use. This is how we enter the stream of holy living. But the absence of dharmas makes further progress impossible. We still need dharmas to help us and others reach the far shore. Thus, we offer up our self-existence and receive in exchange a body of merit. But even a body of merit is but “a lamp, a cataract, a star in space.”
This comparison of dharmas to a raft appears in many other sutras, both Pali and Sanskrit. For example, in the Samyukt Agama the Buddha meets a group of monks who are arguing about who is following a true dharma and who is following a false dharma. The Buddha dismisses their arguments as fruitless and tells them the only purpose of any dharma is to help beings cross the Sea of Life and Death. Once across, what talk can there be of a right dharma or a wrong dharma? The Buddha also uses the metaphor of medicine in the same way, urging his disciples not to become addicted to a medicine that cures their illness, lest they exchange one illness for another. Thus, the Buddha urges us to let go of our perceptions of reality but also to let go of our perceptions of unreality as well. Again, he is concerned that the arhans in his audience will mistake emptiness for enlightenment and fail to understand the importance of working for the liberation of others.
Asanga says, “Not clinging but adapting, we realize all dharmas. Like rafts we leave behind, their hidden meaning is the same.” (14) Thus do bodhisattvas consider the usefulness of spiritual teachings in helping them cross the Sea of Suffering but without becoming attached to them. Vasubandhu comments, “If they lead to higher realization, we should treat dharmas as we would a raft until we reach the shore. This is their ‘hidden meaning.’ The same raft is used and also abandoned. Likewise, other dharmas and truths that do not lead to realization must be abandoned.”
Wang Jih-hsiu says, “A raft is made of bamboo and is for crossing a river. Here it represents the truth and refers to what has been said so far. The Buddha often told his disciples that his teaching was like a raft. Before you can get across, you have to have a raft. Just as before you understand the true nature of things, you need buddha dharmas. But once you’re across, you don’t need the raft. Just as once you understand the true nature of things, you don’t need buddha dharmas. Thus, once you understand, if you should let go of buddha dharmas, how much more so what is not a buddha dharma or the teachings of other sects?”
T’ung-li says, “The dharmas the Buddha wants us to let go of are the dharma of self, the dharma of dharma, and the dharma of emptiness. The Buddha first teaches people that the self is empty to keep them from clinging to the self. He then teaches them that dharmas are empty to keep them from clinging to dharmas. Finally, he teaches them that emptiness is empty to keep them from clinging to emptiness. Here, however, the word ‘dharma’ refers not to the perception of a dharma but to the teachings of the Buddha, while ‘no dharma’ refers not to the absence of such a perception but to such worldly matters as wealth and fame.”
Fu Hsi says, “If you drown in the middle of the river, what good is it to talk about either shore? If you cling to existence or non-existence, you are mired in the mud of the mind.”
Tao-ch’uan says, “You can’t trade gold for gold. You can’t wash water with water. Listen to my song: ‘Climbing a tree isn’t very strange / even heroes fall from a cliff / fish don’t bite on a cold winter night / forget the empty boat and bring back the moon.’”
Textual note: The tat kasya hetoh (and why not) that begins this section is meant as a restatement of the previous “and why not.” Thus, both responses supply answers to the same question. The only Chinese translations that include sandhaya (hidden meaning/meaning behind something) are those of Hsuan-tsang and Yi-ching. Some commentators think this is a mistake, possibly for sananvaya (consequently). Kumarajiva and Bodhiruci interpret it by ch’ang (often) and render this ju-lai ch’ang-shuo (the Tathagata has often said). Meanwhile, Paramartha has juo kuan hsing jen, chieh fa yu ching (those who consider their practice, understand the sutras as a metaphor for a raft). Hsuan-tsang and Yi-ching replace the implied subject (“you”) of the verb prahatavya (let go) with chu yu chih-che (those who are wise).
Chapter Seven: Once again, the Buddha asked the venerable Subhuti, “What do you think, Subhuti? Did the Tathagata realize any such dharma as ‘unexcelled, perfect enlightenment’? And does the Tathagata teach any such dharma?”
The venerable Subhuti thereupon answered, “Bhagavan, as I understand the meaning of what the Buddha says, the Tathagata did not realize any such dharma as ‘unexcelled, perfect enlightenment.’ Nor does the Tathagata teach such a dharma. And why? Because this dharma realized and taught by the Tathagata is incomprehensible and inexpressible and neither a dharma nor no dharma. And why? Because sages arise from what is uncreated.”
CHAPTER SEVEN
IN THE PREVIOUOS CHAPTER, the Buddha told Subhuti to let go of dharmas once they had served their purpose, but to let go of no-dharmas even sooner. The Buddha knows that Subhuti has not yet grasped this teaching, that he is still attached to the no-dharma of no-dharmas: emptiness. Hence, he raises the subject of dharmas again, this time focusing on the dharma among dharmas: unexcelled, perfect enlightenment, the realization of which is experienced by a buddha’s reward body, and the teaching of which is manifested by a buddha’s apparition body, but which is, itself, a buddha’s true body, his dharma body.
In his response, Subhuti applies the same logic he applies elsewhere. Enlightenment is a dharma, and all dharmas are empty. Therefore, enlightenment is empty and is thus beyond the realm of conception or expression. This is the Hinayana doctrine of emptiness. Still, Subhuti sees that there is a problem with this explanation. Hence, he adds that while such a dharma is necessarily empty, it is also necessarily not empty, for the Buddha has realized enlightenment and teaches others how to reach enlightenment. To avoid the contradiction implicit in this, Subhuti takes refuge in the “uncreated.” But has Subhuti reached the land of buddhas, or has he simply changed rafts?
Chao-ming titles this: “No Realization and No Teaching.”
Hui-neng says, “The realization of no realization is called true realization. The teaching of no teaching is called true teaching. Thus follows a chapter on no realization and no teaching.”
Once again, the Buddha asked the venerable Subhuti,
“What do you think, Subhuti? Did the Tathagata realize
any such dharma as ‘unexcelled, perfect enlightenment’?
And does the Tathagata teach any such dharma?”
Ananda (or Vashpa) prefaces this chapter with punar-aparan (once again), as if to indicate that the Buddha was once more trying to break through the limitations of Subhuti’s understanding. This time he focuses on Subhuti’s understanding of the nature of enlightenment. Up until now, the Buddha has focused on the qualifications for embarking on the bodhisattva path. He now proceeds to the goal of buddhahood and the Buddha’s three-in-one body.
The term anuttara-samyak-sanbodhi (unexcelled, perfect enlightenment) was used to distinguish the enlightenment of the Buddha from that claimed by other spiritual orders, including those that maintained the existence or non-existence of certain dharmas, such as the self or the mind. It was called “unexcelled,” because it is only realized by buddhas. It was called “perfect,” because it is not subject to conditions. And it was called “enlightenment,” because it eliminates the shadows of delusion and the darkness of ignorance.
In Chapter Four, the Buddha said that bodhisattvas are not attached to perceptions of a self, a being, a life or a soul, which are the entities of space and time out of which we construct our material world. In Chapter Six, the Buddha added attachment to dharmas and no dharmas, which represent the entities of the mind out of which we construct and deconstruct our conceptual world. The Buddha told Subhuti that if bodhisattvas are attached
to perceptions of space, time, or mind, they are not bodhisattvas. They liberate no one. Still, even if they do manage to remain detached from such entities, the Buddha is concerned that the goal of buddhahood might become another source of attachment. This is why he asks Subhuti about the nature of enlightenment.
Vasubandhu says, “What follows dispels another doubt. Above it was said that we cannot see the Tathagata by means of his attributes because he arose from the uncreated. But if this were the case, why did Shakyamuni have to attain unexcelled, perfect enlightenment before he could teach such dharmas? On the basis of this, there would have been no enlightenment and no teaching of dharmas. This doubt is answered in the following verse.”
Asanga says, “What appears is not a buddha, nor is any dharma taught. His teaching of non-duality can’t be expressed or conveyed in words.” (15) Vasubandhu comments, “This explains that Shakyamuni is the incarnated body of a buddha, which never actually realizes enlightenment or teaches dharmas or liberates beings. By ‘his teaching of non-duality’ is meant he does not not teach, and what is said or what is heard is neither grasped as a dharma nor as no dharma. Thus, dharmas and no-dharmas and those that are not no-dharmas are taught according to the meaning of reality. And why is the focus on teaching and not on realization? Because teaching is the manifestation of realization.”
Chi-fo says, “Before we understand, we depend on instruction. After we understand, instruction is irrelevant. The dharmas taught by the Tathagata sometimes teach existence and sometimes teach non-existence. They are all medicines suited to the illness. There is no single teaching. But in understanding such flexible teachings, if we should become attached to existence or to non-existence, we will be stricken by the illness of dharma-attachment. Teachings are only teachings. None of them is real. The Buddha tells us that there is no teaching and that we should break through the barrier of words.”
T’ung-li says, “If we say he realizes or teaches something, we fall into the view of idealism. If we say he does not realize or teach anything, we disappear into the view of nihilism.”
Textual note: In the first question, neither Kumarajiva, Bodhiruci, Paramartha, Dharmagupta, nor Yi-ching includes sa-kashcid-dharmo (any such dharma). In the second question, they include the word dharma, but the referent is ambiguous. Only Hsuan-tsang’s translation reflects the Sanskrit grammar of extant texts, although he, too, does not focus on enlightenment as the subject of instruction.
The venerable Subhuti thereupon answered,
“Bhagavan, as I understand the meaning of what
the Buddha says, the Tathagata did not realize any
such dharma as ‘unexcelled, perfect enlightenment.’
Nor does the Tathagata teach such a dharma.
At this point, a number of commentaries add that the Buddha could not realize anything because he did not forget anything. And he could not teach anyone anything because we already know everything that we need to know. We, too, have not forgotten anything. Hence, we cannot realize anything.
The Buddha’s questions in this sutra are similar to what later became known as koans in the Zen tradition. They are not posed to develop our understanding so much as to free us from our understanding, in this case our understanding of enlightenment. Thus, Subhuti’s answers are neither true nor false but represent his path through the maze of doubts and misinterpretations concerning the nature of enlightenment as well as the Buddha’s realization and teaching of it. Again, we should remember that Subhuti is the interlocutor of this sutra for a reason. Among the Buddha’s disciples, he was foremost in his understanding of emptiness. But while his understanding of emptiness had liberated Subhuti from the mundane world, it had imprisoned him in another. His answer here points out the walls.
Ting Fu-pao says, “The ‘meaning’ Subhuti is referring to is the teaching of the previous chapter in which the Buddha instructs us to cling neither to dharmas nor to no dharmas.”
The Lotus Sutra says, “Capacities are deep or shallow. Some people are zealous, while others are lazy. The dharmas taught to them are tailored to their abilities. Thus, dharmas have no definite form. Delusion and enlightenment are far apart. Before we are enlightened, it seems as if nothing is realized. After we are enlightened, it seems as if something is realized. But realizing something and not realizing something are both delusions. As long as we remain unattached, we follow the Middle Path. How, then, can we talk about a dharma?” (quoted by Hung-lien)
Chu-hung says, “Dharmas originate in the mind. Only someone who possesses wisdom can transform and understand them. Thus, there are no actual dharmas that we can talk about or name.”
Chiang Wei-nung says, “A tathagata is the embodiment of a dharma, and a dharma body has no form. What is there to conceive? What is there to express?”
Hui-neng says, “Unexcelled, perfect enlightenment is not found somewhere outside. It only exists when the mind contains neither subject nor object.”
Tao-ch’uan says, “If it’s cold, say it’s cold. If it’s hot, say it’s hot. My song goes, ‘Clouds rise on the south slope, rain falls on the north / how many times were you a horse or donkey / regard the flowing water with no nature of its own / it can fit in anything, either square or round.’”
In an effort to demonstrate his understanding of Zen, Shen-hsiu wrote: “The body is a bodhi tree / the mind is like a mirror / always wipe it clean / don’t let it gather dust.” To which Hui-neng replied, “Bodhi isn’t a tree / what’s clear isn’t a mirror / actually there isn’t a thing / where do you get this dust?” (Sixth Patriarch Sutra: 1) And to this, Feng-kan added, “Actually there isn’t a thing / much less any dust to wipe away / who can get this straight / doesn’t need to sit there stiff.” (The Collected Songs of Cold Mountain, p. 263)
Textual note: The expression evam ukte (thereupon/this having been said) is not present in any Chinese translation. In both sentences, Kumarajiva and Bodhiruci have wu yu ting-fa (no specific dharma), Paramartha has wu suo yu fa (not any dharma), Dharmagupta has wu yu yi fa (no single dharma), and Hsuan-tsang has wu yu shao fa (no dharma at all). Yi-ching does not include the word fa (dharma) in either answer. As with the same expressions in the previous section, the omission of specificity blunts the force of this chapter. Instead of focusing on the dharma body of enlightenment, the above translations interpret this chapter as referring to all dharmas taught by the Buddha. But in the previous chapter, the Buddha left dharmas along with no dharmas on the shore of enlightenment. Now he turns to the shore itself, lest it, too, become another raft.
And why? Because this dharma realized and taught
by the Tathagata is incomprehensible and inexpressible
and neither a dharma nor no dharma.
Having denied that the Buddha attained anything or that he teaches anything, Subhuti finds himself in a bind. Although his denial follows from his understanding that all dharmas are empty, he cannot help seeing that he is sitting in front of the Tathagata, the Arhan, the Fully-Enlightened One. To explain this contradiction, he says that the enlightenment realized and taught by the Buddha is beyond the reach of concepts or language, that it is neither a dharma nor is it no dharma. Trying to grasp it would be like grabbing space. And trying to express it would be like describing space. But just as Subhuti shows signs of breaking out of his prison, he erects another wall.
Seng-chao says, “Enlightenment has no form and cannot be grasped. All dharmas are empty and cannot be taught. Thus they have no distinct reality.”
Hsieh Ling-yun says, “What is not a dharma does not exist, while what is not no dharma does not not exist. The non-existence of both existence and non-existence is the ultimate truth.”
Wang Jih-hsiu says, “All such dharmas are created for the sake of beings and possess no reality of their own. Thus, we say they are not dharmas. However, they are used for enlightening beings and cannot absolutely be said to be not dharmas. Thus, we say they are not not dharmas.”
Ch’en Hsiung says, “The dharma of une
xcelled, perfect enlightenment taught by the Buddha can be cultivated in our nature but cannot be found in appearances. It cannot be comprehended through thoughts and cannot be expressed through words. Although it exists, it has never existed. Although it does not exist, it has never not existed. It is like true emptiness, which is, it turns out, not empty.”
Hui-neng says, “Because he is afraid people will cling to the words and sentences spoken by the Tathagata and not understand the truth of formlessness but give birth to false views, Subhuti says it is inconceivable. Disciples do not understand the Tathagata’s profound meaning. They only recite the teachings taught by the Tathagata. They do not understand their own minds and never become buddhas. Thus he calls it inexpressible. When the mouth recites, but the mind doesn’t move, there is no dharma. When the mouth recites, and the mind moves, and nothing is realized, there is not no dharma.”
Conze says, “Psychologically, a negation gives sense only when warding off an attempted affirmation. Where there is no temptation to make positive statements, negations likewise lose their meaning. In other words, dharmas, as strictly empty, cannot even be denied.”
Tao-ch’uan says, “What exactly does ‘no dharma’ mean? My song goes, ‘If it’s something, you can’t find it / if it’s nothing, you can’t find it / in the open empty sky / flying birds leave no tracks / Hey, spin the wheel, and it comes round / east, west, north or south, let it come and go.’”