Some more thoughts about six

Six was rather a long chapter so I wanted to post some more comments today. Many of these are derived from Red Pine's book "The Diamond Sutra" published by Counterpoint, where in addition to giving a beautiful flowing translation of the sutra, Red Pine also provides translations of commentaries by various authors (Zen Masters to academic scholars).

First regarding the Tathatagata being able to see future bodhisattvas with his buddha-perception, Hui-Neng explains it by saying that if there are beings in the future who can cultivate thir conduct detached from appearances, you should know these people have planted roots of goodness, nor merely with one, two, three, four, or five buddhas. In other words, those who truly follow and believe the teaching will be cultivating the seeds of other buddhas so that they may arise and grow. So in a sense Subhuti's question is akin to, "Will there be trees in the future?" and Buddha's answer is "Of course, Subhuti!" Each tree is like a bodhisattva, and the bodhisattva's charity free from attachment is the dispersal of seeds. As the seeds disperse, there will be an exponential increase in the number of bodhisattvas (and buddhas?), and this may be why the Buddha emphasizes the fact that there will actualy have been very large numbers of buddhas coming before and after each bodhisattva in the future. No supernatural abilities are required to see this, only the knowledge that the teaching is a good one, and one that has the tendency to spread. In modern words, it is a self-replicating meme. By emphasizing that the sutra's teaching should be transmitted to all beings, Buddha is ensuring its durability and persistence, and in so doing is following his own teaching. If we vow to liberate all beings, that includes beings of the far future. By telling Subhuti that there will definitely be bodhisattvas in the future, Buddha is simply demonstrating deep belief in his own teaching, and also to dispel Subhuti's doubts, so that he can become a bodhisattva.

Secondly, concerning dharma and no-dharma, and how one should not perceive either, here are a couple of comments:

(Vasubandhu) "Because subjective and objective dharmas do not exist, the perception of a dharma does not arise. But if there is no perception of a dharma, the dharma that does not exist has no self nature. Thus, its empty nature exists. And therefore, it is not no perception of a dharma." This view is similar to some thoughts I expressed in a last post.

(Kamalashila) "According to the highest truth, dharmas do not actually appear. Thus there can be no perception of a dharma. And because they do not appear, they do not disappear. Thus there can be no perception of no-dharma. This tells us to realize that dharmas have no self-nature." In other words, if you do not perceive dharmas, you do not notice their absence, and hence don't perceive no dharmas. I hadn't thought about it this way, but this seems right on, even though Vasubandhu and I still have a point.

(Thich Nhat Hanh) "Those of us on the path of Buddhist practice, because we have been practicing looking deeply, might have fewer erroneous views and our perceptions might be closer to being complete and true, but they are still perceptions."