by Donald Lopez
He said: ‘No Blessed One. It is not through the perfect development of his physical body that the Tathāgata is to be seen. And why is that? “A perfect development of the physical body, a perfect development of the physical body”, that is said to be not a perfect development by the Tathāgata. In that sense “perfect development of the physical body” is used.’
The Blessed One said: ‘What do you think, Subhūti? Should the Tathāgata be seen through the possession of characteristic marks?’
He said: ‘No Blessed One. It is not through the possession of characteristic marks that the Tathāgata is to be seen. And why is that? That which is the possession of characteristic marks is said to be not the possession of characteristic marks by the Tathāgata. In that sense “possession of characteristic marks” is used.’
The Blessed One said: ‘What do you think, Subhūti? Surely it occurs to the Tathāgata: “Not by me has a doctrine been taught.” He, Subhūti, who would speak thus: “By the Tathāgata a doctrine has been taught”, he, Subhūti, would falsely accuse me by taking something up from what is not there. Why is that? “A teaching of doctrine, a teaching of doctrine”, Subhūti, that is not some thing which receives the name “a teaching of doctrine”.’
He said: ‘Blessed One, will there be any living beings at a future time who, after hearing such doctrines being taught, will believe?’
The Blessed One said: ‘They, Subhūti, are neither living beings nor non-living beings. Why is that? “All living beings”, Subhūti, they are said to be not living beings by the Tathāgata. In that sense [10a] “all living beings” is used.
‘What do you think, Subhūti? Surely that which was awakened to by the Tathāgata as the utmost, full and perfect awakening is some thing?’
He said: ‘Blessed One, that which was awakened to by the Tathāgata as the utmost, full and perfect awakening is not some thing.’
The Blessed One said: ‘So it is, Subhūti, so it is. Not even the most minute thing exists or is found there. In that sense “utmost, full and perfect awakening” is used. But again, Subhūti, that thing is the same; there is no difference. In that sense “utmost, full and perfect awakening” is used. Through the fact of there being no personal soul, no living being, no person, that utmost, full and perfect awakening is fully and perfectly awakened to as identical with all meritorious things. “Meritorious things, meritorious things”, Subhūti – but just those are said by the Tathāgata not to be things. In that sense “meritorious things” is used.
‘But once again, Subhūti, if someone, after collecting piles of the seven precious things as large as the kings of mountains, the Sumerus, here in this three thousand great-thousand world-system, were to give them as a gift; and someone else, after having taken from this Perfection of Wisdom a verse of even four lines, were to teach it to others – Subhūti, the quantity of merit from the former case does not approach a hundredth part of the quantity of merit of the latter… [10b] it is not open to comparison.
‘What do you think, Subhūti? Surely it occurs to the Thatūgata: “living beings are released by me”. Not, again, Subhūti, is it to be seen thus. Why is that? That which is released by the Thatāgata is not some living being. If again, Subhūti, there would have been some living being who was released by the Tathāgata, that indeed would have been for him the holding on to a self, the holding on to a living being, the holding on to a personal soul, the holding on to a personal entity. “Holding on to a self”, Subhūti, this is said by the Tathāgata to be not holding on, but it is held on to by simple ordinary people. “Simple ordinary people”, Subhūti, these are said by the Tathāgata not to be people. In that sense “simple ordinary people” is used.
‘What do you think, Subhūti, should the Tathāgata be seen through the possession of characteristic marks?’
He said: ‘That is so, Blessed One. The Thatūgata is to be seen through the possession of characteristic marks.’
The Blessed One said: ‘But if, Subhūti, the Tathāgata were to be seen through the possession of characteristic marks, a wheel-turning king [cakravartin] would also be a Tathāgata.’
He said: ‘As I understand the meaning of what was said by the Blessed One, the Tathāgata is not to be seen through the possession of characteristic marks.’
Then, again, on that occasion the Blessed One spoke these verses:
Those who saw me through form,
Those who associated me with sound – [11a]
They have engaged in a misguided effort.
Those people will not see me.
The Awakened One is to be seen from the doctrine;
The Tathāgata is the body of doctrine;
But, indeed, the substance of the doctrine is not to be understood,
Nor is it possible for it to be understood.
‘What do you think, Subhūti? Is the utmost, full and perfect awakening fully and perfectly awakened to by the Tathāgata through the possession of characteristic marks? Again, Subhūti, it is not to be seen thus. The utmost, full and perfect awakening, Subhūti, is not fully and perfectly awakened to by the Tathāgata through the possession of characteristic marks.
‘If, again, Subhūti, it should occur thus: “by someone set out on the way of a bodhisattva the destruction of some thing is taught, or its annihilation”, again, Subhūti, it is not to be seen thus. The destruction of some thing, or its annihilation, is not taught by someone who has set out on the way of a bodhisattva.
‘If, again, Subhūti, a son or daughter of good family, after filling world-systems similar in number to the sands of the Ganges with the seven precious things, were to give them as a gift to the Tathāgata, arhat, fully and perfectly Awakened One; and if a bodhisattva were to achieve composure in the midst of things that have no self – the latter would indeed produce much greater merit than the former. However, Subhūti, a quantity of merit is not to be acquired by a bodhisattva.’
He said: ‘A quantity of merit, Blessed One, is to be acquired, surely?’
The Blessed One said: ‘ “Is to be acquired”, Subhūti, not “is to be held on to”. In that sense “is to be acquired” is used, [11b]
‘But once again, Subhūti, if someone were to speak thus: “The Tathāgata goes, or he comes, or he stands, or he sits, or he lies down” – he does not understand the meaning of what I said. Why is that? A “ tathāgata”, Subhūti, has not come from anywhere, has not gone anywhere. In that sense“ tathāgata, arhat, fully and perfect awakened one” is used.
‘And if again, Subhūti, a son or daughter of good family were to grind into powder as many world-systems as there are particles of dust in this three thousand great-thousand world-system so that there would be just a pile of the finest atoms – what do you think, Subhūti? Would that pile of atoms be huge?’
He said: ‘That is so, Blessed One, that would be a huge pile of atoms. And why is that? If, Blessed One, there would have been a pile, the Blessed One would not have said “a pile of atoms”. Why is that? That which is said to be a pile of atoms, that is said by the Blessed One not to be a pile. In that sense “a pile of atoms” is used. That which the Tathāgata calls “three thousand great-thousand world-system”, that is said by the Thatāgata not to be a system. In that sense “three thousand great-thousand world-system” is used. Why is that? If, Blessed One, there would have been a system, just that, Blessed One, would have been the holding on to a solid mass. And that which is said by the Tathāgata [12a] to be the holding on to a solid mass is said to be not holding on. In that sense “holding on to a solid mass” is used.’
The Blessed One said: ‘And holding on to a solid mass is itself, Subhūti, a thing not open to verbal expression; it cannot be put into words. It, however, has been held on to by simply ordinary people. Why is that? If, Subhūti, someone were to speak thus, “A view of a self was taught by the Tathāgata, a view of a living being, a view of a personal soul, a view of a person” – would he indeed, Subhūti, speak correctly?’
He said: ‘No, Blessed O
ne. And why is that? Blessed One, that which is said by the Tathāgata to be a view of a self, that is said by the Tathāgata to be not a view. In that sense “a view of a self” is used.’
The Blessed One said: ‘In this way, Subhūti, one who has set out on the way of a bodhisattva should know all things, should be intent on them. And he should be intent on them in such a way that even the conception of a thing would not be present. Why is that? “Conception of a thing, conception of a thing”, Subhūti, that is said by the Tathāgata not to be a conception. In that sense “conception of a thing” is used.
‘And again, Subhūti, if a bodhisattva, mahāsattva, having filled immeasurable, incalculable world-systems with the seven precious things, were to give them as a gift; and if a son or daughter of good family, having taken up from this perfection of wisdom a verse of even four lines, were to preserve it, were to teach it, were to master it [12b] – the latter certainly would produce immeasurable, incalculable merit, much greater than the first.
‘And how would he fully cause it to appear? In such a way that he would not cause it to appear. In that sense “fully cause it to appear” is used.’
A shooting star, a fault of vision, a lamp;
An illusion and dew and a bubble;
A dream, a flash of lightning, a thundercloud –
In this way is the conditioned to be seen.
The Blessed One said this.
Delighted, the elder Subhūti, and the monks and nuns, the laymen and women, and the world with its devas, men, asuras and gandharvas rejoiced in that spoken by the Blessed One.
The Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā is concluded.
Translated by Gregory Schopen from the manuscript of the Vajracchedikā found at Gilgit. The translation was first published in Luis O. Gómez and Jonathan A. Silk (eds.), The Great Vehicle: Three Mahāyāna Texts (Ann Arbor: Center for South and Southeast Asian Studies, 1989), pp. 123–31.
52
IN PRAISE OF REALITY
Buddhism is renowned for the doctrine of no-self, the assertion that among the constituents of the person there is nothing that is permanent, independent, or ultimately real. It is said that the mistaken belief in an autonomous self is the most fundamental form of ignorance, and hence the root cause of all suffering, and that the understanding that there is no self is the highest form of wisdom, leading to liberation from suffering. The early doctrine of no-self developed in some of the Mahāyāna sūtras into the doctrine of emptiness (śūnyatā) (as seen in the previous chapter), which declares that just as there is not self in the person, so all phenomena in the universe are devoid of any essence or intrinsic existence; indeed, it is the very absence of such an essence that is the true nature of things. Emptiness was expounded most famously by the Indian monk Nāgārjuna (who probably lived in the second century CE) in such works as his Treatise on the Middle Way (Madhyamakaśāstra). Nāgārjuna’s followers called themselves Madhyamaka, followers of the Middle Way. This was not the simple middle way between indulgence and asceticism recommended by the Buddha in his first sermon, but the middle way between existence and non-existence.
There also developed in the Mahāyāna a doctrine that appears to be at odds with the notion of emptiness. Generally referred to as the tathāgatagarbha or ‘buddha-nature’, it holds that all beings (or, according to some interpreters, most beings) possess within them the seed of enlightenment. In many texts, this buddha-nature is described as something real and substantial, something very much like a self. This problem was evident to a number of the great Indian commentators, who went to some lengths to explain why the buddha-nature was not a self; some stated that it was the very absence of a self that was the true buddha-nature.
There were other terms in the Buddhist lexicon to name the nature of reality; one of the most famous is dharmadhātu, a difficult term to render into English. Dharma, as we have seen, carries a wide range of meanings, including ‘phenomenon’, ‘doctrine’, and ‘law’. Here it seems to mean ‘reality’ or ‘truth’. Dhātu can mean ‘element’, ‘realm’ or ‘sphere’. Thus, dharmadhātu might be translated as ‘sphere of reality’, that truth which, when understood, brings enlightenment. The proponents of the Madhyamaka tended to regard dharmadhātu as another synonym for emptiness, while others saw it as a more substantial reality, eternal and pure, something worthy of devotion and praise.
A renowned text extolling the dharmadhātu is translated below, entitled simply Dharmadhātustotra (or Dharmadhātus-tava), ‘Hymn to the Dharmadhātu’. Those who regard him as the relentless critic of all forms of essentialism may be surprised to know that this hymn is attributed to Nāgārjuna. Scholars are divided as to whether this text is, in fact, also the work of the author of the Treatise on the Middle Way. In Tibet, however, there is no controversy on the matter of authorship; instead, a long and often contentious debate sought to reconcile Nāgārjuna’s six works on emptiness (referred to as his ‘logical corpus’) with this and four other hymns (referred to as his ‘devotional corpus’). Regardless of its authorship, the ‘Hymn to the Dharmadhàtu’ is a famous and widely quoted work, especially in Tibet. It is also a difficult text, written in ornate poetry, made all the more difficult because only a few passages from the original Sanskrit are extant as quotations in other texts; the translation below is from the Tibetan version. The difficulty and richness of the text preclude any possibility of adequate commentary here. Yet even without comment, the text remains evocative of the hidden yet indestructible reality that is said to lie within each being in the universe, waiting to be uncovered.
Hymn to the Dharmadhātu
Homage to the youthful Mañjuśrï
Homage to the dharmadhātu, which surely abides in all sentient beings, who, completely ignorant of it, wander in the three realms, (1)
[And] to the purity [that comes] from cleansing the cause of saṃsāra, just that is nirvāṇa; just that is also the dharmakāya. (2)
Because it is mixed with milk, the essence of butter is not evident. Because it is mixed with the afflictions, the dharmadhātu is not seen. (3)
By purifying milk, the essence of butter becomes untainted. By purifying the afflictions, the dharmadhātu becomes utterly untainted. (4)
A lamp placed in a pot is not perceptible. The dharmadhātu placed in the pot of the afflictions is not seen. (5)
Wherever you make holes in a pot, the nature of light appears in that direction. (6)
When the pot is broken with the diamond of samādhi, it shines to the limits of space. (7)
The dharmadhātu is not produced, it never ceases, it is unafflicted at all times, it is stainless in the beginning, middle and end. (8)
Although the vaidurya jewel is always luminous, its light does not shine if it is inside a stone. (9)
In the same way, although the dharmadhātu obstructed by the afflictions is utterly unstained, the light does not shine in saṃsāra; the light shines in nirvāṇa. (10)
If the element is present, through the effort [of digging] you will see the purest gold; if the element is absent, it only causes pain. (11)
Because it is covered by the husk, the unhusked grain is not asserted to be the rice. Because they are covered by the afflictions, they are not called ‘buddhas’. (12)
When it is freed from the husk, the rice appears; when it is freed from the afflictions, the dharmakāya shines fully. (13)
‘The banana tree has no essence’ is used as an example in the world. But just as we eat its sweet fruit, which is its essence, (14)
So, when one is separated from the cage of the afflictions in essenceless saṃsāra, the essence, which is its fruit, becomes ambrosia for all embodied beings. (15)
In this way, then, from every seed comes a fruit similar to its cause. What intelligent person could prove that there is a fruit without a seed? (16)
That very element which serves as a seed is held to be the basis of all the qualities [of a buddha]. Through gradual purification one attains the rank of a buddha. (17)
Although the sun and moon are stainless, they are blocked by the five obstacles, such as clouds, mist, smoke, eclipses and dust. (18)
In the same way, the mind of clear light becomes blocked by the five obstructions: desire, enmity, laziness, agitation and doubt. (19)
When a fireproof garment, stained by various stains, is placed in fire, the stains are burned but the garment is not. (20)
In the same way, the mind of clear light is stained by desire. The stains are burned by the fire of wisdom; just that clear light is not. (21)
All the sūtras setting forth emptiness spoken by the teacher turn back the afflictions; they do not impair the element. (22)
Just as the water in the earth remains untainted, wisdom is within the afflictions, yet remains unstained. (23)
Because it is the dharmadhātu, it is not self, not female, not male. Free from all conceptions, how could it be construed to be the self? (24)
All phenomena are free from attachment; among them, female and male are not perceived. In order to subdue the blindness caused by desire, [the terms] ‘female’ and ‘male’ are taught. (25)
The mind is purified by [contemplating] the three: ‘impermanent, suffering and empty’. The quality that purifies the mind best, however, is the absence of intrinsic nature. (26)
Although there is a child in the belly of a pregnant woman, it is not seen; the dharmadhātu, covered by the afflictions, is not seen. (27)
The four conceptions – the conceptions of I and mine, [and those] due to the recognition of names and to signs – arise from the primary and the secondary elements [and can therefore be removed]. (28)
Even the prayers of the buddhas are invisible and signless; they are fused with analytical knowledge; a buddha has the nature of eternal reality. (29)
The horns on the head of a rabbit are imagined but do not exist; all phenomena are imagined but do not exist. (30)