Thoughts on Seven

The term 'unexcelled perfect enlightenment' comes from the Sanskrit anuttara-samyak-sanbodhi, and according to Red Pine, was a term used to distinguish the enlightenment realized by buddhas from that claimed by other spiritual orders.

A major implication of this passage, as far as I see it, is that in addition to remaining unattached to everything else, one should also remain unattached to the goal of being unattached. Enlightenment cannot be grasped.

In Subhuti's response, he says that the Tathagata's teaching is neither a dharma nor an adharma. One of the commentaries interprets this to mean the following. The teaching is more than just words, and if it is recited and practiced without understanding it is pointless. Thus it is not a dharma because it is more than that. If the teaching is recited and understood, and practiced with understanding, then it is good and useful. Thus the teaching is not an adharma because there is something genuinely there.

Red Pine makes a big deal about how Subhuti misses the mark when he explains that the teachings of the previous chapters are neither dharma nor adharma because `sages arise from the uncreated,' and points out that Buddha does not praise Subhuti for this answer as he does elsewhere in the sutra. Later in life, apparently, Subhuti has changed his attitude explaining that Buddhas neither arise from the created nor the uncreated. It may be that Subhuti's view is incorrect because those on the bodhisattva path cannot live only in the (uncreated) world of ideas, but must acknowledge the reality of the outside world, even though our conceptualizations of it are never completely accurate. The following quote of T'ung-li may be relevant:

"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."

I just noticed that "ideal" and "idea" are related words! As far as I can see, Red Pine is right, and Subhuti doesn't fully understand yet. Subhuti is falling into the camp of idealism, that buddhas spring forth from the uncreated. But like all conceptualizations this is not accurate; the truth is more complex.

Red Pine has this to say: "The word Subhuti uses here is asanskrita. In the Vedas this means "unconsecrated," in contrast to sanskrita which means "consecrated," as in "consecrated by the gods." One of the Buddha's contributions to the world was to give us a religion which does not depend on the gods. It was not centered on the Laws of Manu but the Law of Karma. Thus, early Buddhists applied the term asanskrita to those dharmas that are self-existent and not subject to creation or destruction. They applied the term to nirvana, to space and to the Buddha's dharma body. Subhuti reflects this understanding as he has no difficulty in associating enlightenment with such uncreated dharmas. But he has not yet grasped the emptiness of emptiness, which is why the sutra does not end here. Nor does the Buddha praise him, as he does later in the sutra, but encourages him in the next chapter to look beyond 'the uncreated'."