One

The Blessed Mother, the heart of the Perfection of Widsom
In Sanskrit Bhagavati Prajna Paramita Hridaya

This Sutra is referred to as a "mother" because it gives birth to wisdom, to bodhisattvas and to buddhas. It is called the Heart Sutra because it is the heart of the Perfection of Wisdom or prajnaparamita teachings.

"Thus have I once heard: The Blesed One was staying in Rajgriha at Vulture Peak along with a great community of monks and a great community of bodhisattvas, and at that time, the Blessed One entered the meditative absorption on the varieties of phenomena called the appearance of the profound. At that time as well, the noble Avalokiteshvara, the bodhisattva, the great being, clearly beheld the practice of the profound perfection of wisdom itself and saw that even the five aggregates are empty of intrinisic existence."

The sutra describes the physical place and conditions where the action is about to take place, and also the spiritual place. The physical place, Vulture Peak, is a famous place among Buddhists. It in a peak in India where Shakyamuni Buddha is reputed to have meditated often. I've seen a picture and it is a beautiful spot. It had desert-like characteristics. Buddha was present with a practicing community or sangha and so this was a great oppurtunity for the many present to learn something new.
The spiritual location of this sutra is the meditative state, and more specifically meditation on emptiness. According to the Dalai Lama "The 'profound' here refers to emptiness, which is also often described as 'suchness' or as 'things just as they are.'"

I'd also like to pass along the meaning of "Bhagavan" as the Dalai Lama explains it. Here it is translated as "Blessed One," and the Sanskrit term it translates "connotes someone who has conquered all forces of negativity, that is, the four obstructive forces, or maras: the maras of afflictions, of aggregates, of death, and attachment to sensory gratification."

This is the Heart Sutra

My previous post is the complete text of the Heart Sutra. It is even denser and more packed with meaning than the Diamond Cutter Sutra. I have a book of the Dalai Lama's commentary on this sutra. Over the next few days, I plan on going through his commentary and posting my thoughts bit-by-bit online.

Today, the following sentence stuck out:

"Likewise, feelings, perceptions, mental formations, and consciousness are all empty."

Emtpiness is a central concept in Buddhism. To say that X is empty is to say that is is not ultimately real. It has no well-defined beginning and no well-defined ending. At the boundaries it is fuzzy. A leaf does not ever begin, it is comprised of soil and sunlight that came before it. It does not end. It returns to the soil. It is not well-defined at the boundaries. For example, where does the leaf begin and the tree end? If an insect eats part of the leaf, do we count the digesting pulp in the insect's gullet as part of the leaf? Do we count the chemical reactions that take place inside the leaf as part of the leaf? It wouldn't be a leaf without them. In a similar vein [sic], feelings, perceptions, mental formations, and consciousness are all empty.

Bhagavati Prajna Paramita Hridaya

Thus have I once heard:

The Blessed One was staying in Rajgriha at Vulture peak along with a great community of monks and a great community of bodhisattvas, and at that time, the Blessed One entered the meditative absorption on the varieties of phenomena called the appearance of phenomena called the appearance of the profound. At that time as well, the noble Avalokiteshvara, the bodhisattva, the great being, clearly beheld the practice of the profound perfection of wisdom itself and saw that even the five aggregates are empty of intrinisic existence.

Thereupon, through the Buddha's inspiration, the venerable Shariputra spoke to the noble Avalokiteshvara, the bodhisattva, the great being, and said, "How should any noble son or noble daughter who wishes to engage in the practice of the profound perfection of wisdom train?"

When this had been said, the holy Avalokiteshvara, the bodhisattva, the great being, spoke to the venerable Shariputra and said, "Shariputra, any noble son or noble daughter who so wishes to engage in the practice of the profound perfection of wisdom should clearly see this way: they should see perfectly that even the five aggregates are empty of intrinsic existence. Form is emptiness, emptiness is form; emptiness is not other than form, form too is not other than emptiness. Likewise, feelings, perceptions, mental formations, and consciousness are all empty. Therefore, Shariputra, all phenomena are emptiness; they are without defining characteristices; they are not born, they do not cease; they are not defiled, they are not undefiled; they are not deficient, and there not complete.

"Therefore, Shariputra, in emptiness there is no form, no fellings, no perceptions, no mental formations, and no consciousness. There is no eye, no ear, no nose, no tongue, no body, and no mind. There is no form, no sound, no smell, no taste, no texture, and no mental objects. There is no eye-element and so on up to no mind-element including up to no element of mental consciousness. There is no ignorance, there is no extinction of ignorance, and so on up to no aging and death and no extinction of aging and death. Likewise, there is no suffering, origin, cessation, or path; there is no wisdom, no attainment, and even no non-attainment.

"Therefore, Shariputra, since bodhisattvas have no attainments, they rely on this perfection of wisdom and abide in it. Having no obscuration in their minds, they have no fear, and by going utterly beyond error, they will reach the end of nirvana. All the buddha too who abide in the three times attained the full awakening of unexcelled, perfect enlightenment by relying on this profound perfection of wisdom.

"Therefore, one should know that the mantra of the perfection of wisdom--the mantra of great knowledge, the unexcelled mantra, the mantra equal to the unequalled, the mantra that quells all suffering--is true because it is not deceptive. The mantra of the perfection of wisdom is proclaimed:

tadyatha gaté gaté paragaté parasamgaté bodhi svaha!

Shariputra, the bodhisattvas, the great beings, should train in the perfection of wisdom in this way."

Thereupon, the Blessed One arose from that meditative absorption and commended the holy Avalokiteshvara, the bodhisattva, the great being, saying this is excellent. "Excellent! Excellent! O noble child, it is just so; it should be just so. One must practice the profound perfection of wisdom just as you have revealed. For then even the tathagatas will rejoice."

As the Blessed One uttered these words, the venerable Shariputra, the holy Avalokiteshvara, the bodhisattva, the great being, along with the entire assembly, including the worlds of gods, humans, asuras, and gandharvas, all rejoiced and hailed what the Blessed One had said. [Translated by Geshe Thupten Jinpa]

Comments on these gospel verses

I am not a Christian, but I do believe that Jesus had quite a few good things to say. Of course it's not clear how much of what has been attributed to him was actually said by him, but if one can recognize truth in the words or teachings of any being, then their particular origin should not be an obstruction.

Two of the quoted passages underscore the idea for me that Jesus, at least sometimes, when he referred to the Kingdom of God (or heaven) was not referring to a glorious future, or a sublime afterlife, but was in fact referring to a spiritual state of mind right now. The Kingdom of God is within you, and can be received as a little child. This mental state, here compared to that of a little child, to me is the same as Buddha nature, the state of awareness and lack of mental-narrative that occurs with practice and meditation.

Interestingly, in that same passage of Luke above, Jesus goes on to describe a more traditional view of the coming of the Kingdom of God, but only to his disciples. But hey, dharma teachings are like rafts, and this second part of Jesus's teaching is a raft unsuitable for me.

The second passage below, about how nothing going into a person can make them unclean, just what comes out. There is a subtext of the idea of sin and its corollary guilt here, but I want to concentrate more on the positive side of it. Nothing coming into us has the intrinsic power to harm us. I'd like to expand that a bit and say that even objects in our own mental landscape do not have the intrinsic power to harm us. This includes emotions, thoughts, fantasies, etc. It is what we do with them that causes harm. It is what comes out of us. Moreover, when what comes out of us is tainted by inner problems, it harms those we come in contact with, but I would venture to say that it harms us even more. By maintaining a peaceful, detached, aware mental landscape, we can experience things with calm and equanimity, and can ourselves generate more good in the world.

The other passage quoted below i like because it emphasizes humility, a concept very close to egolessness. I do not have any special place in the world. I am part of the world, and of the human organism, and I am not intrinsically better or worse than anyone else.

Some Gospel Verses

Once, havign been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the Kingdom of God is within you."
Then he said to his disciples...

-Luke 17:20-22

Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. Nothing outside a [person] can make [them] `unclean' by going into [them]. Rather, it is what comes out of a [person] that makes them 'unclean.'"

-Mark 7:14-15

Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, "If anyone wants to be first, he must be very last, and the servant of all."

-Mark 9:35

"I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the knigdom of God like a little child will never enter it."

-Mark 10:15

Uncomfortable

This book of Pema Chödron's is extremely good. She is an American Buddhist nun, and she has a wonderful, compassionate writing style, moreover her understanding seems very solid and deep, consistent with my own understanding, developed over my short period of practice.

I can really identify with this excerpt. I have this habit of encountering unpleasant thoughts, memories and feelings while progressing through my constant mental self-narration, and immediately trying to move away from the unpleasantness. However, I've found that through meditating I am more likely to acknowledge the unpleasant thought and let it sit. This helpe me to understand my own psyche much better, and by understanding it, acknowleding its defects lovingly, I can truly accept and love myself. I have made some important discoveries about myself this way.

I titled this commentary "uncomfortable" because, as part of a moral inventory I am taking of myself, I have encountered a major, and kind of nasty surprise. I have talked about it at length with a few people, and it hurts alot. It may be like an arrow lodged in me. To heal, it needs to be removed, but it is painful coming out. This practice of meditating and looking at my own thoughts with loving acceptance and appraisal has helped me to discover this arrow. I had repressed its effect effectively. I also never admitted how much I hated the arrow, because part of my self-narrative is that I am kind an loving, and that i cannot hate.

This acknowleding of my own emotions has been quite stormy, mainly because I now am aware of them. I believe I used to get angry or upset or insecure about a situation, but not be conscious of it. It would affect my outlook and my actions without me even really knowing. Now, something will bother me, and then in meditation my mood change will be set in stark relief, and I will see it clearly, and realize that I have, in fact, been bothered. I now notice that random day-to-day things bother me a fair amount, but also that this passes relatively quickly, especially because I can act on any resentments that build.

For example, I was involved in a misunderstanding a few days ago, and I was really bothered by it. But I saw this clearly, and worked actively to free myself of the resentment, so that by the next day I was recovered, and could genuinely laugh about the incident with the other fellow.

Anyway, ta ta for now.

Encountering the Edge

In the teachings of Buddhism, we hear about egolessness. It sounds difficult to grasp; what are they talkign about anyway? When the teachings are about neurosis we feel right at home. That's something we really understand. But egolessness? When we reach our limit, if we aspire to know that place fully--which is to say that we aspire to neither indulge nor repress--a hardness in us will dissolve. We will be softened by the sheer force of whatever energy arises--the energy of anger, the enrgy of disappointment, the energy of fear. When it's not solidified in one direction or another, that very energy pierces us to the heart, and it opens us. This is the discovery of egolessness. It's when all our usual schemes fall apart. Reaching our limit is like finding a doorway to sanity and the unconditional goodness of humanity, rather than meeting an obstacle or a punishment.

The safest and most nurturing place to begin working this way is during sitting meditation. On the cushion, we begin to get the hang of not indulging or repressing and of what it feels like to let the energy just be there. That is why it's so good to meditate every single day and continue to make friends with our hopes and fears again and again. this sows the seeds that enable us to be more awake in the midst of everyday chaos. It's a gradual awakening, and it's cumulative, but that's actually what happens. We don't sit in meditation to become good meditators. We sit in meditation so that we'll be more awake in our lives.

-Excerpted from Comfortable with Uncertainty, Pema Chödrön

Thirty-two

"Subhuti, suppose someone filled infinite incalculable numbers of worlds with precious substances and used these to give in charity. Now suppose a good man or a good woman who has awakened the inspiration for enlightenment holds this sutra, even so much as the equivalent of a four-line verse, accepts and holds it, reads and recites it, and expounds it for others, the blessing in this will exceed the former.

"How does one expound it for others? Not grasping forms, not budging from thusness as such. Why? All created things are like dreams, illusions, bubbles, shadows; like dew, and like lightning. They should be viewed in this way."

After Buddha had spoken this sutra, the elder Subhuti, as well as monks, nuns, laymen, laywomen, angels, humans, and titans from all worlds, having heard what the Buddha said, all rejoiced greatly; they believed it, accepted it, worked at it, and put it into practice. [Thomas Cleary: from The Sutra of Hui-Neng Shambhala Publications 1998]

"If even a Bodhisattva of Great Courage filled innumerable galaxies with the seven precious treasures, and offered them as a gift to the supremely enlightened ones, his merit would not compare with the immeasurable merit of a good man or woman who took just one stanza from this Prajnaparamita discourse on dharma and remembered, recited, studied and illuminated it for others. How is this done? In a way which is free from appearances. thus one illuminates it for others."

Like a meteor, like darkness, as a flickering lamp, An illusion, like hoarfrost or a bubble, Like clouds, a flash of lightning, or a dream: So is all conditioned existence to be seen.

Thus spoke Buddha. [Joshua Priitkin: from Scott Newton's Zen Pages]

"Furthermore, Subhuti, if a fearless bodhisattva filled measureless, infinite worlds with the seven jewels and gave them as an offering to the tathagatas, the arhans, the fully-enlightened ones, and a noble son or daughter grasped but a single four-line gatha of this teaching of the perfection of wisdom and meomorized, discussed, recited, mastered, and explained it in detail to others, the body of merit produced by that noble son or daughter as a result would be immeasurably, infinitely greater. And how should they explain it? By not explaining. Thus is it called `explaining.'

"As a lamp, a cataract, a star in space
an illusion, a dewdrop, a bubble
a dream a cloud, a flash of lightning
view all created things like this."

All this was spoken by the Buddha to the joy of the elder Subhuti, the monks and nuns, the laymen and laywomen, the bodhisattvas, the devas, humans, asuras and gandharvas of the world all of whom were greatly pleased with what the Buddha said. [Red Pine: from The Diamond Sutra Counterpoint 2001]

Thoughts on Thirty-One

Know all dharmas but don't be attached to them. Buddha really does say `all' here, a subtlety I missed when i read this at first. Here is a relevant quote by Thich Nhat Hanh

All concepts co-arise and are empty of a separate self. If the highest, most fulfilled, awakened mind is empty, then the perception of self and so on are also empty. Ao why should we discriminate or be afraid of them? All concepts are dharmas, objects of mind, signs. Look deeply into one dharma, and you will see all dharmas. Once we understand that a concept is just a concept, we can go beyond that concept and be free of the dharma that concept represents.

Just like all objects in the universe are interdependent, the objects of our minds are all interdependent, and cannot exist in isolation. Our minds arise from interconnections. Looking deeply at one teaching, even if it is a terrible one, one will be bringing in other ideas and moving out among the web of interconnections, exploring the dharma landscape. Of course, one needs to actually look deeply and practice awareness for this to be true. Some teachings encourage us to look shallowly, and this might obstruct people who do not already have the right spirit of awareness and inquiry. Once we have that spirit, though, such teachings cannot harm us.

Clinging to a specific dharma, by the way, shuts down that spirit I just talked about. Dharma teachings are like rafts. A raft is a dependable and trustworthy way to cross a river, but it needs to be discarded when the other side is reached.

Thirty-One

"Subhuti, if someone says that the Buddha expounds the notion of self, the notion of person, the notion of a being, or the notion of a liver of life, do you think this person understands the principles I expound?"

"World Honored One, this person does not understand the principles expounded by the Realized One. Why? The World Honored One says that a notion of self, a notion of person, a notion of a being, or a notion of a liver of life, they are called the notion of self, the notion of a person, the notion of a being, and the notion of a liver of life."

"Subhuti, those who aspire to unexcelled complete perfect enlightenment should know, see, and believe and understand all truths in this way, not conceiving of an appearance of truth. Subhuti, the Realized One says that the supposed `appearance of truth' is not characteristic of truth; this is called the characteristic of truth." [Thomas Cleary]

"Suppose, Subhuti, that someone said that the Tathagata has taught a conception of a self, an entity or a personality. Would he be right?"

Subhuti answered: "Not at all, Buddha. That which the tathagata has called `a conception of self' is no conception."

"Therefore, Subhuti," Buddha said, "one who has set out on the Bodhisattva Path should know all dharma and view them intently. Yet he should know them and view them in a way which does not give rise to a perception of any dharma. Why? The Tathagata has taught that perception of a dharma is no perception, even though it is called `perception of a dharma.'" [Joshua Pritikin]

"And how so? Subhuti, if someone should claim that the Tathagata speaks of a view of a self, or that the Tathagata speaks of a view of a being, a view of a life, or a view of a soul, Subhuti, would such a claim be true?"

Subhuti said, "No, indeed, Bhagavan. No, indeed, Sugata. Such a claim would not be true. And why not? Bhagavan, when the Tathagata speaks of a view of a self, the Tathagata speaks of it as no view. Thus is it called a `view of the self.'"

The Buddha said, "Indeed, Subhuti, so it is. Those who set forth on the bodhisattva path know, see, and believe all dharmas but know, see, and believe them without being attached to the perception of a dharma. And why not? The perception of a dharma, Subhuti, the `perception of a dharma' is said by the Tathagata to be no perception. Thus is it called the `perception of a dharma.'"[Red Pine]

Thoughts on Thirty

Buddha asks Subhuti a question which seems to lead nowhere. If one were to grind a huge number of galaxies into atoms, would there be a lot of atoms? Subhuti says yes, even though atoms and galaxies are provisional concepts. Unlike some previous times, Buddha doesn't go on to use the answer itself to develop his point, but rather uses Subhuti's provisos to develop his point. "Yes, indeed, Subhuti, attachment to an entity, such as a galaxy or an atom, is neither dharma nor a dharma, incomprehensible and inexpressible."

The subdivision process is related to the holistic conception of reality. The universe is made of atoms, so it is not fully unified, but on the other hand the atoms cannot exist apart from the universe, so they are not fully individual. My concept of a door is inaccurate, and the door itself has no self-nature. It cannot exist apart from the trees that were cut down to make it. It cannot exist apart from human culture. My personal concept of the door cannot exist apart from me. The door could not exist without the door frame. It can't hang in midair. But the doorframe cannot exist without the wall, else it wouldn't really be a door in the usual sense. If I were to conceive of a door in a doorframe without a wall, such as might exist after a tornado demolished most of the house, this would merely point to the fluid nature of the concept of door. It is not solid and fixed, but changing. However, despite all of these ways in which the `door' is empty, if I were to attempt to walk through it without opening it, I would fail. Just as the atoms referred to above have some individual existence, so does the door. The empty nature of reality does not mean reality does not exist.

In a similar vein, we can never fully understand the mind of another person. (In fact we can never understand our own mind.) But that doesn't mean we should ignore people, or that we need not be compassionate. Indeed, it means quite the opposite. All boundaries are illusory, the dividing line between me and another person is artificial. I am part of the human organism. I am part of the body of the natural world. As a result, I want to be compassionate and helpful toward others. On the other hand, I am not the leader of the human organism or the natural world, just a small cell in the complex whole. As a result, I am not responsible for the actions of another. I cannot change anyone else, nor can I force them to do anything. They are their own people. Complex individuals with a universe full of atoms of their own. (Several commentators took the start of Chapter Thirty to be metephorical for the mind (the universe) and its thoughts (the atoms).) We are all one, but we are all many. We have incomprehensible diversity and complexity.

Thirty

"Subhuti, if a good man or a good woman pulverized the billion-world universe into atoms, do you think there would be many of these atoms?"

Subhuti said, "Very many, World Honored One. Why? If these atoms were really existent, then the Buddha would not say they were a mass of atoms. Why? The Buddha says a mass of atoms is not a mass of atoms, it is called a mass of atoms.

"World Honored One, the billion-world universe spoken of by the Realized One is not a universe, it is called a universe."

"What is the reason? If the universe really existed, it would be a compound; but the Realized One says that a compound is not a compound, it is called a compound."

"Subhuti, the compound is inexpressible, but ordinary people greedily cleave to their affairs."
[Thomas Cleary]

"If a man or woman took a galaxy for every particle of dust in this vast galaxy and thoroughly ground each one until it was reduced to atoms, would the heap of atoms be great?"

"Indeed, Buddha," Subhuti answered, "the heap of atoms would be immense. And yet this enormous heap of atoms is not really a heap of atoms, even though it is called 'a heap of atoms'.

"Further, although the Tathagata has said 'galaxy,' he teaches that it is not in truth a galaxy. For, Buddha, if there were in truth a galaxy, it would be a material object to be seized upon, and the Tathagata has taught that there is no seizing at all."

"Indeed, Subhuti," Buddha said, "this 'seizing upon a material object' is a convention of language, an expression devoid of real content. It is neither dharma nor adharma, even though ordinary people have seized upon it foolishly." [Joshua Pritikin]

"Furthermore, Subhuti, if a noble son or daughter took as many worlds as there are specks of dust in a billion-world universe and by an expenditure of limitless energy ground them into a multitude of atoms, Subhuti, what do you think, would there be a great multitude of atoms?"

Subhuti replied, "So there would, Bhagavan. So there would, Sugata. There would be a great multitude of atoms. And why? If a great multitude of atoms existed, Bhagavan, the Tathagata would not have spoken of a `multitude of atoms.' And why? Bhagavan, this multitude of atoms of which the Tathagata speaks is said by the Tathagata to be no multitude. Thus it is called a `multitude of atoms.' Also, Bhagavan, this `billion world universe' of which the Tathagata speaks is said by the Tathagata tp be no universe. Thus is it called a `billion-world universe.' And how so? Bhagavan, if a universe existed, attachment to an entity would exist. But whenever the Tathagata speaks of attachment to an entity, the Tathagata speaks of it as no attachment. Thus it is called `attachment to an entity.'"

The Buddha said, "Subhuti, attachment to an entity is inexplainable and inexpressible. For it is neither a dharma nor no dharma. Foolish people, though, are attached." [Red Pine]

Where to now?

The Diamond Cutter Sutra is almost over now. It has thirty-two chapters. My question is: what should we do next? I value my practice of getting up in the morning and devoting some time to spiritual progress, and I would like to continue.

Some options:

1) Go through the same sutra again, keeping the old stuff.

2)Go through the sutra again, overwriting the old stuff. (Like the sand forms that certain Zen monks erase after making.)

3) Go through a different text, such as one by Suzuki, or Hanh.

4) Something else. I'm open to suggestions.

Thoughts on Twenty-Nine

The Tathagata has no form. Our Buddha nature has no form. When our mind is clouded, the Buddha nature is obscured. When the clouds disappear, our Buddha nature, like the moon, becomes apparent behind the clouds. Put in this way, I see why meditation is such a useful tool. Sitting there, clearing thoughts from the mind, the clouds can disappear, and stop obscuring the moon.

This conception of our Buddha nature resonates with me. I was involved in an incident (of no lasting consequence) with a certain caustic individual a couple of days ago, and despite the fact that I have tried to let the incident go, it has definitely lingered to cloud my mind. I have observed myself become more irritable and less spiritual as a result. My mind has become clouded. As B. so wonderfully pointed out though, I don't have to pile on additional clouds, thunderheads of self-pity and guilt. The fact that my state of mind is receptive enough for me to notice and be conscious of the clouds in the first place is a wonderful thing.

By the way, I didn't invent the moon metaphor, it is Buddhist tradition that I picked up from several different books I've read. It's a beautiful metaphor, though. I like it better than the sun, which can be harsh, uncomfortable and far from tranquil. The moon is peaceful, beautiful and subtle. A landscape illuminated by moonlight, such as some I've seen in the desert where there is little light pollution, is an extremely beautiful and calming sight.



(I stole this image from here. )

Twenty-Nine

"Subhuti, if anyone says the Realized One comes or goes, sits or reclines, this person does not understand the principle I expound. Why? The Realized One comes from nowhere and goes nowhere; that is why he is called the Realized One." [Thomas Cleary]

Buddha continued: "If anyone says that the Tathagata comes or goes, sits or reclines, he fails to understand my teaching. Why? The Tathagata has neither whence nor whither, and therefore he is called the supremely wnlightened one." [Joshua Pritikin]

"Furthermore, Subhuti, if anyone should claim that the Tathagata goes or comes or stands or sits or lies on a bed, Subhuti, they do not understand the meaning of my words. And why not? Subhuti, those who are called `tathagatas' do not go anywhere, nor do they come from anywhere. Thus are they called `tathagatas, arhans, fully-enlightened ones.'"[Red Pine]

Thoughts on Twenty-Eight

A central teaching of Buddhism is emphasized here: the selfless, birthless nature of all things. The understanding and accepting of this teaching produces more good in the worlds than monumental acts of material charity. That's what the Buddha says anyway. And even though the understanding of this teaching produces a lot of good, if a person holds onto this good, if a person holds onto the mental image of expected rewards, that person is not a bodhisattva at that moment. Holding onto and grasping at rewards negates to a large extent the merit produced by understanding and accepting emptiness.

A story about emptines. I read in a book by Osho(?) that Shakyamuni's inspiration for the selfless, birthless nature of all things was a dead leaf. He realized that the leaf really had no beginning since it was transformed from other elements (soil and sunlight) into its current state. In a similar way it has no end, because again it transforms into other constituents, such as soil particles. I would add to that that the leaf has no self-nature because it depends on many other things for its existence: the tree, the sun, the earth, the ecosystem, its ancestors, the ecosystems that came before, etc. We humans don't seem to have the gratitude for our current existence which is on the level of all these dependencies. Furthermore, there are so many more beings that will exist in the future, and we don't seem to care at all how we hand the planet to them. Why are their needs less important? especially since there are many more people in the future than have ever existed in the past. I admit that I am often cavalier about pollution and taking care of the environment, but I do think I have a moral responsibility to treat the planet kindly.

Wow, I kind of got distracted there. Maybe this shows that if we really accept that all of our self-natures in reality are not self-natures and interdepend in complex ways, then we really will gain more compassion for others, even those of the future and past. ta ta for now...

Twenty-Eight

"Subhuti, suppose a bodhisattva took as many jewels as would fill worlds as numerous as the sand grains in the Ganges River and gave them in charity. Now suppose someone else knew the selflessness of all things and attained tolerance; this bodhisattva would surpass the blessings attained by the former bodhisattva.

"Why? Subhuti, it is because bodhisattvas do not accept blessings. Subhuti, the blessings produced by bodhisattvas are not supposed to be objects of greed and attachment; therefore it is said they no not accept blessings."[Thomas Cleary]

"Suppose, Subhuti, that a man or woman filled with the seven treasures as many galaxies as there are grains of sand in the great Ganges, and then offered them all to the Tathagatas; and suppose a Bodhisattva patiently forbore all dharmas, which in themselves have no essence. This Bodhisattvas would gain an immeasurably greater merit. And yet a Bodhisattva should gain no merit."

"But would not, Buddha," Subhuti asked, "A Bodhisattva gain much merit?"

"He would gain it, Subhuti, but he should not grasp it."
[Joshua Pritikin]

"Furthermore, Subhuti, if a noble son or daughter took as many worlds as there are grains of sand in the Ganges and covered them with the seven jewels and gave them as a gift to the tathagatas, the arhans, the fully enlightened ones, and a bodhisattva gained an acceptance of the selfless, birthless nature of dharmas, the body of merit produced as a result would be immeasurably, infinitely greater. And yet, Subhuti, this fearless bodhisattva would not obtain a body of merit."

The venerable Subhuti said, "But surely, Bhagavan, this bodhisattva would obtain a body of merit!"

The Buddha replied, "They would, Subhuti, but without grasping it. This is it called `obtaining.'"[Red Pine]

Thoughts on Twenty-Seven

Buddhism is constructive and not destructive. It's good to recognize the tenuous nature of all things, their `empty' nature, their `unreality,' but that doesn't mean we have to go down the path of nihilism. I believe William James said something along the lines of `We shouldn't believe things that are false, but we should believe things that are true.' Furthermore, all concepts are incorrect to some extent, but on the flip side, all concepts are correct to some extent. It is good to look for connections between people, concentrate on similarities, and not focus on differences. This is a prescription for peace. Standing up on a pedestal and yelling at others, "I am right, and you and your dharmas are wrong," is not treading the Bodhisattva path. If I were to do this, I would be severing my connection with those beings. I would be communicating anger, lack of compassion, egotism, and other things, and not the right message. I would be contributing to those beings' suffering. I would also be contributing to my own suffering by building up internal resentment that others do not share or affirm my beliefs. Indeed, a couple of years ago, I was an insecure atheist. I would fairly often get into caustic exchanges, belittling people who had a belief in God. I was lashing out because of my own fear, my own insecurity. I felt threatened by others' belief. In addition, the feeling of superiority that I got when I felt another's belief was childish, was a temporary salve to my ego. Yet I was really ingesting poison by cultivating anger and resentment in this way, and spreading it around too, with no compassion for my victims. The way I'm living now is more peaceful, more sustainable, and more beneficial for myself and others.

Twenty-Seven

"Subhuti, if you entertain the thought that the Realized One does not attain unexcelled complete perfect enlightenment on account of perfect manifestation, you should not think this way. Subhuti, if you entertain the thought that those who aspire to unexcelled complete perfect enlightenment speak of all things as being annihilated, you should not think this way. Why? Those who aspire to unexcelled complete perfect enlightenment do not speak pf things as being annihilated." [Thomas Cleary]

The Buddha said: "No one should say, 'Those who set out upon the Bodhisattva Path presume the annihilation of a dharma,' for it is not so, Subhuti. Those who tread the Bodhisattva Path do not presume the annihilation of any dharma. [Joshua Pritikin]

"Subhuti, what do you think? Was it due to the possession of attributes that the Tathagata realized unexcelled, perfect enlightenment? Subhuti, you should hold no such view. And why not? Subhuti, it could not have been due to the possession of attributes that the Tathagata realized unexcelled, perfect enlightenment.

"Furthermore, Subhuti, someone may claim, `Those who set forth on the bodhisattva path announce the destruction or the end of some dharma.' Subhuti, you should hold no such view. And why not? Those who set forth on the bodhisattva path do not announce the destruction or the end of any dharma." [Red Pine]

Thoughts on Twenty-Six

I posted four translations since the first three seemed to differ substantially. According to legend, a sage looked at the baby Shakyamuni (the future Buddha) and seeing the thirty-two marks declared he would be a universal king or a buddha. Historically, early Buddhists thought that genuine Buddhas had to have thirty-two specific physical attributes. This Sutra refutes that claim, drawing on the aforementioned legend for evidence. Buddha only makes reference to thirty-two attributes in some translations, leading me to believe that the original teaching was just concerned with attributes in general, and not refuting the specific belief of early Buddhism concerning the thirty-two. Early Buddhists were just as swaddled in delusion as all other creatures, but it says a lot that Buddhist practice has persisted, grown and evolved. Later Buddhists de-emphasized the Buddha himself, lest beings get too attached to the concept and to the person.

To me, Buddhism is about practice, about realizing my own Buddha nature. I think this may be what is meant by "looking for the Buddha." My own Buddha nature is hard to describe, it is a mental place within myself which I relaize when I meditate and which helps to inform my actions in my day-to-day living.

Twenty-Six

"Subhuti, what do you think---can you view the Realized One in terms of the thirty-two marks?"

Subhuti said, "That's the way it is---we view the Realized One in terms of the thirty-two marks."

The Buddha said, "If you view the Realized One in terms of the thirty-two marks, then a law-giving sage ruler would be a Realized One."

Subhuti said to the Buddha, "World Honored One, as I understand the meaning of what the Buddha says, we should not view the Realized One in term of the thirty-two marks."

At that point the World Honored One said in verse,

"Anyone who sees me in form,
Or who seeks me through sound,
Is traveling a false path
And cannot see the Realized One."

[Thomas Cleary]

Who sees me by form, Who sees me in sound, Perverted are his footsteps upon the way; For he cannot perceive the tathagata. The Buddhas are seen through dharma, From dharma-bodies their guidance comes; But the nature of dharma is never discerned, It cannot be grasped by the mind alone.

[Joshua Pritikin]

"Subhuti, what do you think? Can the Tathagata be seen by means of the possession of attributes?"

Subhuti replied, "No, indeed, Bhagavan. As I understand the meaning of what the Buddha says, the Tathagata cannot be seen by means of the possession of attributes."

The Buddha said, "Well done, Subhuti. Well done. So it is, Subhuti. It is as you claim. The Tathagata cannot be seen by means of the possession of attributes, a universal king would be a tathagata. Hence, the Tathagata cannot be seen by means of the possession of attributes."

The venerable Subhuti said to the Buddha, "As I understand the meaning of what the Buddha says, the tathagata cannot be seen by means of the possession of attributes."

On that occasion the Buddha then spoke this gatha:

"Who looks for me in form
who seeks me in a voice
indulges in wasted effort
such people see me not."

[Red Pine]

What do you think, Subhuti, is the Tathagata to be seen by means of his possession of marks?---Subhuti replied: No, indeed, O Lord.---The Lord said: If, Subhuti, the Tathagata could be recognized by his possession of marks, then also the universal monarch would be a tathagata. Therefore the Tathagata is not to be seen by means of his possession of marks.---Subhuti then said: As I, O Lord, understand the Lord's teaching, the Tathagata is not to be seen through his possession of marks.

Further the Lord taught on that occasion the following stanzas:

Those who by my form did see me,
And those who followed me by voice
Wrong the efforts they engaged in,
Me those people will not see.

From the Dharma should one see the Buddhas,
From the Dharmabodies comes their guidance.
Yet Dharma's true nature cannot be discerned,
And no one can be conscious of an object.

[Edward Conze]

Thoughts on Twenty-Five

I should have no sense of accomplishment when I help another being. After all, I do not exist, nor does the other being. Although I exist and so do they. Both statements are true when interpreted in the right spirit, and ar enot actually logical negatives of each other. The Buddhist teaching of emptiness, that no thing inherently exists, or has its own self-nature, is a useful teaching, but it is not the end of the story. No thing inherently exists, since it depends on things which came before, but reality is definitely there. It helps to realize that we constantly misconceive it, and that it may not even be conceivable.

I like the second part of the passage, where Buddha says `foolish people' are deluded by having a concept of self, life and soul. At first he may seem to be passing judgment, but in fact `foolish people' are no people. How can you pass judgment on a non-person? Of course `non-person' has its own negative connotations, but just as I am a non-self, others are non-people. We are all part of the organism of humanity, the organism of nature, the jigsaw puzzle of reality.

Twenty-Five

"What do you think, Subhuti? You should not say that the Realized One entertains this thought: `I should liberate beings.' Subhuti, do not think this. Why? There really are no beings the Realized One liberates. If there were beings the Realized One liberates, then the Realized One would have self, person, being, and liver of life.

"Subhuti, the Realized Ome says that having self is not having self, yet ordinary people think they have self. Subhuti, the Realized One says ordinary people are not ordinary people, they are called ordinary people."[Thomas Cleary]

"Does a Tathagata ever think, 'I have liberated beings'? Never imagine this, Subhuti, for there is no being to be liberated by the Tathagata. If the Tathagata thought to liberate any being, a concept of self, entity or personality would have arisen in him. The Tathagata has taught that the concept of self is no concept. Nevertheless, common people cling to the concept of self. The Tathagata has taught that the common people are not common people, even though they are called `common people'."[Joshua Pritikin]

"Subhuti, what do you think? Does it occur to the Tathagata: `I rescue beings'? Surely, Subhuti, you should hold no such view. And why not? Subhuti, the being does not exist who is rescued by the Tathagata. Subhuti, if any being were rescued by the Tathagata, the Tathagata would be attached to a self. He would be attached to a being, attached to a life, and attached to a soul. `Attachment to self,' Subhuti, is said by the Tathagata to be no attachment. Yet foolish people remain attached. And `foolish people,' Subhuti, are said by the Tathagata to be no people. Thus are they called `foolish people.' [Or "That's what we mean when we say `foolish people.'"] [Red Pine]

Thoughts on Twenty-Four

Red Pine suggests that Mount Sumeru is partially a metaphor for the self. (Indeed, earlier Buddha asked, "If a person had an immense, perfect body, like Mount Sumeru, would that person's self-existence be great?") Just as Mount Sumeru is ancient Indian mythology represents the most massive structure in the world, so too our conception of self is the most important mental structure we erect.

A note on what B. has noted to be the evangelical quality of this sort of passage. I agree that in a certain sense this is evangelical, that spreading the word is supposed to be highly meritorious. But to me evangelism also has the connotation of coercion and judgment. `I will do everything in my power to force you to believe what I say, and if you don't, you are on the wrong track.' I don't believe that's what the Buddha is saying here. Making known your spiritual tools to others in a friendly non-coercive way, with the understanding that "what works for me may not work for you," is more along the lines of the way I understand this. Also, I think that setting a good example is the most powerful way of spreading the word. I can think of many, many Christians who do their faith a disservice when their actions differ so wildly from their stated beliefs. I can't say that my actions are always in perfect or even approximate consonance with my stated beliefs, but when they are it is much more likely to send the right spiritual message.

Twenty-Four

"Subhuti, if someone took heaps of jewels as big as the polar mountains in a billion worlds and gave them away in charity, the blessings would not compare to a hundredth part, a hundredth trillionth part, or indeed any calculable or imaginable part of the blessings of accepting, holding, reading, reciting, and explaining to others even so much as a four-line verse of this sutra on the perfection of wisdom." [Thomas Cleary]

[This section omitted from Pritikin]

"Moreover, Subhuti, if a man or woman brought together as many piles of the seven jewels as all the Mount Sumerus in the billion worlds of the universe and gave them as a gift to the tathagatas, the arhans, the fully-enlightened ones, and a noble son or daughter grasped but a single four-line gatha of this dharma teaching of the perfection of wisdom and made it known to others, Subhuti, their body of merit would be greater by more than a hundred-fold, indeed, by an amount beyond comparison."
[Red Pine]

Thoughts on Twenty-three

`Undifferentiated is the dharma in which nothing is differentiated.' A practical application of this is that we should feel exactly equal to all other beings. Not better than, not worse than. In the past, and even now, I have the habit of forming judgments of people where I either am dismissive of them or I put them on a pedestal. Thinking back to my childhood, I don't think that I ever felt equal to anyone else. Usually I felt superior, and sometimes I felt inferior. There is a quote whose attribution I fail to recall, that the most enduring friendships are those between two people who each feel slightly superior to the other. I don't believe this is an unbreakable axiom, but there was a lot of truth to it in my case.

Here is a poem by Fsu Hsi

Water and land are the same true realm

flying and walking alike are real

dharmas include no this or that

the truth isn't distant or near

distinctions of self and other be gone

away with perceptions of better or worse

once we know this equalizing nature

we enter nirvana together

Red Pine notes that the term `auspicious dharmas' has a double meaning. The sanskrit word for auspicious is kushala, derived from kusha the name of a sacred type of grass in ancient India, which was used by the Buddha and others for their meditation mats. So auspicious dharmas arise from meditation. As usual, auspicious dharmas are no dharmas, and one aspect of this is the fact that we don't cultivate or practice auspicious dharmas (also called Buddha dharmas) for any kind of reward. Hui-Neng has this to say:

"If a person cultivates any auspicious dharma and expects a reward, it is not an auspicious dharma. While if a person completely carries out all six paramitas [perfections] and ten-thousand practices wihout expecting any reward, this is called an `auspicious dharma.'"

This may seem different than one possible Christian point of view, which is that we are rewarded for our good deeds in Heaven. But it is actually not so far off. A Christian teaching is that talking and bragging about our good deeds negates our reward. Similarly, I'm sure many would agree that internal bragging inside our own head would also negate our heavenly reward. Hence practicing good deeds should be undertaken not for any earthly reward. Finally, at least once, Jesus says that the Kingdom of Heaven is within us. Saying we get a reward in heaven doesn't need to mean that we will get rewarded in an afterlife, but can also mean that we get an internal spiritual reward inside of us right now. This is a reward which is no-reward. But I am calling it a `reward.'

Twenty-Three

"Furthermore, Subhuti, this reality is unbiased; it has no high or low. This is called unexcelled complete perfect enlightenment. Those who practice all good ways without a self, without a person, without a being, and without a liver of life will realize unexcelled perfect enlightenment.

"Subhuti. so-called `good-ways' the Realized One says are not good ways, they are called good ways." [Thomas Cleary]

"This dharma is identical only with itself and is undifferentiated. Therefore is it is called `supreme enlightenment.' Being unique and undifferentiated because of the absence of a self, entity or personality, this supreme enlightenment is known as the collectivity of all good dharmas. But Subhuti, the Tathagata has taught that dharmas are not in truth dharmas, even though they are called `dharmas.'" [Joshua Pritikin]

"Furthermore, Subhuti, undifferentiated is this dharma in which nothing is differentiated. Thus is it called `unexcelled, perfect enlightenment.' Without a self, without a being, without a life, without a soul, undifferentiated is this unexcelled, perfect enlightenment by means of which all auspicious dharmas are realized. And how so? Auspicious dharmas, Subhuti, `auspicuous dharmas' are spoken of by the Tathagata as `no dharmas.' Thus are they called `auspicious dharmas.' [Using the term `auspicious dharmas' includes the preceding remark, that auspicious dharmas are no dharmas.]
" [Red Pine]

Thoughts on Twenty-Two

Enlightenment is not something to be grasped. It is something we have within us that we cultivate. That doesn't mean the process of cultivation is passive. It takes practice. On the other hand, one of the ways we practice is by not clinging to things, by not clinging to dharmas. Thus part of enlightenment is not grasping at the slightest dharma, just as enlightenment itself cannot be grasped. One metaphor I recall hearing, I believe in a different context, is that we can wear our ideas like a loose garment, one we can change when we need to. We live in a world, and we need to constantly conceptualize it. There's no way around it. But if we don't cling to those concepts, if we are ready to change our clothes when they become dirty and smelly, that is fundamentally better than clinging to a delusion simply because we have decided to cling to it.

A personal example might be helpful. I was talking with E. about Buddhism and philosophy and he talked a bit about Christianity. I have had a deep prejudice against Christianity, but part of the beauty of Buddhist teaching is that it encourages us to overcome prejudice. Rather than concentrating on what I believe to be the negatives in Christianity, I am trying also to see its numerous positive sides. In particular, I went and read a book by Thich Nhat Hanh which really is a wonderful book. It also looks for the beauty in Christian teaching, and draws many parallels between Buddhism and Christianity. Basically, I realized that I didn't want to read the book earlier because I was afraid it would mitigate my prejudice, and I wanted to cling to that prejudice. Once I realized that's what was going on, I felt like I should transcend my prejudice.

Twenty-Two

Subhuti said to the Buddha, "World Honored One, when the Buddha attained unexcelled complete perfect enlightenment, is it that there was nothing attained?"

The Buddha said, "That is so. Subhuti, there was nothing whatsoever for me to attain in unexcelled complete perfect enlightenment. This is called unexcelled complete perfect enlightenment."[Thomas Cleary]

"Do you think, Subhuti," Buddha asked, "there is any dharma by which the Tathagata has known supreme enlightenment?"

"There is no such dharma, Buddha."

"Thus, Subhuti, no atom of dharma is to be found. Therefore, enlightenment is called supreme." [Joshua Pritikin]

"Subhuti, what do you think? Did the Tathagata realize any such dharma as unexcelled, perfect enlightenment?"

The venerable Subhuti replied, "No, indeed, Bhagavan. The Tathagata did not realize any such dharma, Bhagavan, as unexcelled perfect enlightenment."

The Buddha said, "So it is, Subhuti. So it is. The slightest dharma is neither obtained nor found therein. Thus is it called `unexcelled, perfect enlightenment.'" [Red Pine]

Thoughts on Twenty-One

I inserted a sentence in brackets in the translation to try to clarify what Red Pine meant.

It is truly a wonderful and adaptable teaching that reminds us not to cling to it. Dharma teachings are like rafts, to be abandoned when we have crossed the river. Or like B. says, we can even transcend the raft and swim across. After all `sticking to rafts' is itself a raft to eventually be abandoned. My own ideas and conceptualizations about Buddhism have changed since I first began studying it. The thing I have taken away as primary is to constantly examine my own ideas, especially those I'm afraid of. This is a dharma teaching which is no-dharma teaching, because it is a teaching which seeks to liberate us from teachings.

Thich Nhat Hanh has compared the Diamond Cutter Sutra to a piece of music, and I begin to see what he means, as we see different themes repeated in slightly different contexts and recombined in novel fashions. For example, Subhuti keeps bringing up these 'future beings,' and Buddha responds differently each time, depending on the context. Since he had just been talking about the unreality of his teaching, it makes sense that he now dwells on the unreality of future beings. In Red Pine's book he includes commentary by a lots of different people, and there is moderate but not impressive agreement about what Buddha meant here. One way to summarize is that beings who believe this teaching are trying to liberate themselves from the concepts of `self' and `being.' So they are `no-beings.' On the other hand, the liberation is never complete, so they are also `beings.' One could also think of other ways they are beings and no-beings. For example, there's a fairly obvious sense in which the future doesn't exist, and so future beings are also no-beings in that sense. And Buddha's comments may be taken to also mean that you should both worry and not worry about future beings. Have compassion for them, as part of your bodhisattva vow, but don't obsess about them and don't invent reality surrounding them, since the future is indistinct. This same principle applies to most of present humanity. We will never meet most of the billions of people now living, but we should still care and be compassionate about them. On the other hand, we shouldn't invent reality surrounding them. Accept what we know about them and no more. If you assume something about someone you don't know, it is usually an extreme oversimplification and is often plain wrong. Psychology studies have found that people tend to characterize their acquaintances by very simple mental models, thinking of them as unchanging and unvariable, compared to their own minds, which are constantly changing. So in a very real sense, our conceptions of others do not reflect reality.

Well, anyway, that's all for now.

Twenty-One

"Subhuti, do not say that the Realized One entertains this thought: `I should preach some doctrine.' Do not entertain this thought. Why? If any say the Realized One preaches any doctrine, they are slandering the Buddha, because they cannot understand what I say. Subhuti, the explanation of the teaching is that there is no doctrine to preach---that is called teaching."

At that point Subhuti, whose life was wisdom, said to the Buddha, "World Honored One, if living beings hear this teaching in the future, will they believe in it or not?"

The Buddha told Subhuti, "They are not living beings, but not not living beings. Why? Subhuti, the Realized One says living beings are not living beings, they are called living beings." [Translation by Thomas Cleary]

The Buddha said: "Does the Tathagata think, `I have demonstrated dharma'? If anyone says `The Tathagata has demonstrated dharma', he speaks falsely, for he misunderstands the Tathagata by grabbing at what is not there. There is no dharma which could be taight as a demonstration of dharma."

Subhuti asked: "in the distant future when the way is obscured, will there be beings who, upon hearing these dharmas, will believe them?"

"Subhuti," Buddha replied, "they would be neither beings nor non-beings, for the Tathagata has taught that beings are not in truth beings, even though he has called them `beings'. [Translation by Joshua Pritikin]

The Buddha said, "Subhuti, what do you think? Does it occur to the Tathagata: `I teach a dharma'?"

Subhuti replied, "No, indeed, Bhagavan. It does not occur to the Tathagata: `I teach a dharma.'"

The Buddha said, "Subhuti, if someone should claim, `the Tathagata teaches a dharma,' such a claim would be untrue. Such a view of me, Subhuti, would be a misconception. And how so? In the teaching of a dharma, Subhuti, in the `teaching of a dharma,' there is no such dharma to be found as the `teaching of a dharma.'"

Upon hearing this, the venerable Subhuti asked the Buddha, "Bhagavan, will there be any beings in the future, in the final epoch, in the final period, in the final five hundred years of the dharma-ending age, who hear a dharma such as this and believe it?"

The Buddha said, "Neither beings, Subhuti, nor no beings. And how so? Beings, Subhuti, `beings' are all spoken of by the Tathagata, Subhuti as no beings. Thus are they called `beings'. [Equivalently: When you say `being', bear in mind that beings are no beings.]"[Translation by Red Pine]

Thoughts on Twenty

I like Red Pine's translation here. By phrasing it as "Can the Tathagata be seen by means of the perfect development of the physical body" and "Can the Tathagata be seen by means of the possession of attributes," we see a double meaning. Can our own perfect physical development allow us to see the Tathagata? Can we recognize the tathagata by his own perfect physical development? The answer to both questions is no. The Tathagata is formless, and we can recognize the Tathagata, the body of reality, through formlessness. When I meditate, I try to `sweep thoughts from my mind,' try not to dwell on any particular thing. But paradoxically, by freeing my mind this way (not completely of course) I can often gain deeper insight into the nature of reality.

The commentary in Red Pine's book mentions the "reward body" (or "bliss body") and the "dharma body" as relevant to this chapter. These are traditional Buddhist concepts, which I don't fully understand. Here are some definitions I found on the web:

the Dharma Body (Skt. dharmakaya, Jp.hosshin) is the form in which a buddha transcends physical being and is identical with the undifferentiated unity of being or Suchness (Skt. tathata, Jp. shinnyo);

the Bliss or Reward Body (Skt. sambhogakaya, Jp. hojin) is obtained as the "reward" for having completed the bodhisattva practice of aiding other beings to end their suffering and having penetrated the depth of the Buddha's wisdom. Unlike the Dharma Body, which is immaterial, the Bliss Body is conceived of as an actual body, although one that is still transcendent and imperceptible to common people; (excerpted from http://www.jodo.org/about_hs/ho_teach.html)

The fact that the Buddha refers to "perfect development" means he is probably referring to the reward body in the first part of Chapter 20. Red Pine says that `the reward body alone is perfect in form because it is formless.' In any event, however the reward body is conceived, the Buddha has prompted Subhuti to remind us that we should not be attached to it. It is an illusion.

The second part of Chapter 20 relates to the Dharma Body, which is the Buddha's true body, free of all attributes.

I can't say i really understand the difference between the Dharma Body and the Reward Body.

Twenty

"Subhuti, what do you think---can the Buddha be seen by his perfect physical body?"

"No, World Honored One. The Realized One is not to be seen by his perfect physical body. Why? The Realized One says the prefect physical body is not a perfect physical body, it is called a perfect physical body."

"Subhuti, what do you think---can the Realized One be seen by the full complement of distinguishing marks?"

"No, World Honored One. The Realized One is not to be seen by the full complement of distinguishing marks. Why? The Realized One says that the full complement of distinguishing marks is not the full complement, it is called the full complement of distinguishing marks." [Translation Thomas Cleary]

"Is the Tathagata to be seen," Buddha asked, "in the manifestation of his form?"

"Indeed not," Subhuti replied, "for the Tathagata has taught that the manifestation of his form is no manifestation, even though it is called `the manifestation of his form.'" [Translation by Joshua Pritikin]

"Subhuti, what do you think? Can the Tathagata be seen by means of the perfect development of the physical body?"

Subhuti replied, "No, indeed, Bhagavan. The Tathagata cannot be seen by means of the perfect development of the physical body. And why not? The perfect development of the physical body, Bhagavan, the `perfect development of the physical body' is spoken of by the Tathagata as no development. Thus it is called `the perfect development of the physical body.'"

The Buddha said, "Subhuti, what do you think? Can the Tathagata be seen by means of the possession of attributes?"

Subhuti replied, "No, indeed, Bhagavan. The Tathagata cannot be seen by means of the possession of attributes. And why not? Bhagavan, what the Tathagata speaks of as the possession of attributes is spoken of by the Tathagata as no possession of attributes. Thus it is called the `possession of attributes.'" [translation by red pine]

Thoughts on Nineteen

As Red Pine points out in his commentary, this chapter begins as does Chapter Eight. However, in Chapter Nineteen the Buddha does not compare dharma gifts with spiritual gifts. Rather, he focuses only on dharma (material) gifts. Perhaps this is renewed emphasis on the dharma eye which we might be tempted to neglect once we have advanced to a certain stage. Another way to say this, perhaps, is that material charity can pave the way for spiritual charity. The spiritual effects that our charity has on people is the true body of merit, but since these effect are not physical, we can say that they `have no substance.'

Nineteen

"Subhuti, what do you think---if someone were to fill the universe with precious substances to use for giving in charity, would this person gain many blessing because of this?"

"Yes, World Honored One. This person would gain very many belsings because of this."

"Subhuti, if blessings had substance, the Realized One would not say that many blessings are gained. Because blessings are nonexistent, therefore the Realized One says many blessings are gained." [Translation by Thomas Cleary]

[This section omitted from Pritikin]

"Subhuti, what do you think? If some noble son or daughter filled the billion worlds of this universe with the seven jewels and gave them all as a gift to the tathagatas, the arhans, the fully-enlightened ones, would the body of merit produced as a result by that noble son or daughter be great?"

Subhuti replied, "Great, indeed, Bhagavan. It would be great Sugata."

The Buddha said, "So it would, Subhuti. So it would. The body of merit produced as a result by that noble son or daughter would be immeasurably, infinitely great. And how so? A body of merit, Subhuti, a `body of merit' is spoken of by the Tathagata as no body. Thus is it called a `body of merit.' Subhuti, if there were a body of merit, the Tathagata would not have spoken of a body of merit as a `body of merit.'" [Translation by Red Pine]

Thoughts on Eighteen

Many different types of eyes, many different ways to look at the world, internal and external. We should use them all, at least those of us who want to. The physical eye is useful, but cannot see inside things, cannot penetrate a thin piece of paper. The divine eye, on the other hand, can see `the internal aspect' of things, can see beyond the surface. The prajna (wisdom) eye perceives the illusory nature of boundaries separating beings, perceives the illusory nature of a being, a life and a soul. The dharma eye perceives that there is a reality out there anyway, despite the fact that we must always misconceive it. The buddha eye sees everything, merging the perspectives of the prajna and dharma eyes. This distinguishes Mahayana Buddhism from some other sects, because the Mahayana (including Zen and Tibetan) Buddhism emphasizes contact with the world, compassion for other beings. Sitting alone, contemplating the illusory nature of all things, one would not yet have the buddha eye.

Here is a poem by Fu Hsi:


The divine eye sees without obstruction
the physical eye sees but is obstructed
the dharma eye sees only expedient truth
the prajna eye sees the emptiness of causes
the buddha eye is like a thousand suns
on different bodies it shines the same
within the luminous dharma realm
there is no place it sheds no light


Regarding the second part of the passage, and where the Buddha says he knows the myriad streams of thought of countless other beings, this seems a bit of an odd claim. But I don't believe he is claiming mental telepathy. The following quote is helpful to me:

The Tathagata's awareness of all the thoughts of so many countless beings is like the ocean's awareness of all the waves in the ocean. -Sheng Yi

The Tathagata experiences the same mental processes experienced by countless other beings, and realizes that he is one with them. When each of us experiences a spiritual state, when we realize our Buddha nature, when we make contact with the Holy Spirit, we are in some sense part of one vast spiritual body.

Moreover, we all have (at least) one thing in common: our own consciousness. Just like external reality, we cannot ever pin it down. The internal structure of our own mind is as illusory as the outside world. Both are constantly changing.

Eighteen

"Subhuti, what do you think---does the Realized One have the physical eye?"

"Yes, World-Honored One; the Realized One has the physical eye."

"Subhuti, what do you think---does the Realized One have the celestial eye?"

"Yes, World-Honored One; the Realized One has the celestial eye."

"Subhuti, what do you think---does the Realized One have the wisdom eye?"

"Yes, World-Honored One; the Realized One has the wisdom eye."

"Subhuti, what do you think---does the Realized One have the reality eye?"

"Yes, World Honored One; the Realized One has the reality eye."

"Subhuti, what do you think---does the Realized One have the enlightened eye?"

"Yes, World Honored One; the Realized One has the enlightened eye."

"Subhuti, what do you think---does the Buddha say the grains of sand in the Ganges River are sand?"

"Yes World Honored One. The Realized One says they are sand."

"Subhuti, what do you think---if there were as many Ganges Rivers as there are grains of sand in the Ganges, would buddha-worlds as numerous as grains of sand in that many Ganges Rivers be many?"

"Very many, World Honored One."

The Buddha told Subhuti, "The many mental states of the many beings in that many lands are all known to the Realized One. What is the reason? The Realized One says that those minds are not mind, they are called mind. What is the reason? Subhuti, the past mind cannot be grasped, the present mind cannot be grasped, and the future mind cannot be grasped." [Translation by Thomas Cleary]

Buddha asked Subhuti: "What do you think? Does the Tathagata possess the physical eye?"

"Yes Buddha," Subhuti replied.

"Does the Tathagata possess the divine eye of enlightenment?"

"Surely, Buddha, the Tathagata possesses it."

"Does the Tathagata possess the eye of transcendental wisdom, Subhuti?"

"Indeed he does, Buddha."

"Does the Tathagata possess the dharma eye?"

"Yes, Buddha."

"And, Subhuti, does the Tathagata possess the Buddha-eye of universal compassion?"

"Without doubt, Buddha, the Tathagata possesses all these eyes."

"Subhuti, I know the mind of every sentient being in all the host of universes, regardless of any modes of thought, conceptions or tendencies. For all modes, conceptions and tendencies of thought are not mind. And yet they are called 'mind.' Why? It is impossible to retain past thought, to seize future thought and even to hold present thought." [Translation by Joshua Pritikin]

The Buddha said, "Subhuti, what do you think? Does the Tathagata possess a physical eye?"

Subhuti replied, "So he does, Bhagavan. The Tathagata possesses a physical eye."

The Buddha said, "Subhuti, what do you think? Does the Tathagata possess a divine eye?"

Subhuti replied, "So he does, Bhagavan. The Tathagata possesses a divine eye."

The Buddha said, "Subhuti, what do you think? Does the Tathagata possess a prajna eye?"

Subhuti replied, "So he does, Bhagavan. The Tathagata possesses a prajna eye."

The Buddha said, "Subhuti, what do you think? Does the Tathagata possess a dharma eye?"

Subhuti replied, "So he does, Bhagavan. The Tathagata possesses a dharma eye."

The Buddha said, "Subhuti, what do you think? Does the Tathagata possess a buddha eye?"

Subhuti replied, "So he does, Bhagavan. The Tathagata possesses a buddha eye."

The Buddha said, "Subhuti, what do you think? As many grains of sand as there are in the great river of the Ganges, does the Tathagata speak of them as grains of sand?"

Subhuti replied, "So he does, Bhagavan. So he does, Sugata. The Tathagata speaks of them as grains of sand."

The Buddha said, "What do you think, Subhuti? If there were as many rivers as all the grains of sand in the great river of the Ganges and as many worlds as there are grains of sand in all these rivers, would there be many worlds?"

Subhuti replied, "So there would, Bhagavan. So there would, Sugata. There would be many worlds."

The Buddha said, "And as many beings as there might be in those worlds, Subhuti, I would know there myriad streams of thought. And how so? Streams of thought, Subhuti, what the Tathagata speaks of as `streams of thought' are no streams. Thus are they called `streams of thought.' And how so? Subhuti, a past thought cannot be found. A future thought cannot be found. Nor can a present thought be found." [Translation by Red Pine]

Thoughts on Seventeen

This chapter contains more about selflessness and not grasping at anything, including the goal of enlightenment, about how all concepts are fluid. I believe this is what is meant by `all dharmas are buddha-dharmas.' This reminds me of some ideas of Douglas Hofstadter about how consciousness is about leaping outside of rules, breaking out of conceptual boxes at all levels, getting out of ruts.

I couldn't help but fixate on the phrase 'No beginning, Subhuti, is the highest truth.' I don't understand why it is the highest truth. I will have to think about that.

Seventeen

At that point Subhuti said to the Buddha, "World Honored One, when good mean and good women awaken the inspiration for unexcelled perfect enlightenment, how should they live? How should they conquer their minds?"

The Buddha told Subhuti, "Good men and good women who have awakened the inspiration for unexcelled perfect enlightenment should develop an attitude like this: 'I should liberate all living beings through extinction. After having liberated all living beings through extinction, there is not a single living being who has been liberated through extinction.'

"What is the reason? SUbhuti, if bodhisattvas have an image of self, an image of person, an image of being, or an image of a liver of life, then they are not bodhisattvas.

"What is the reason? Subhuti, in reality there is no state of awakening the inspiration for unexcelled perfect enlightenment.

"Subhuti, what do you think---when the realized One was with Dipankara Buddha, was there any state of attaining unexcelled complete perfect enlightenment?"

"No, World Honored One. As I understand the meaning of what the Buddha says, when the Buddha was with DIpankara Buddha there was no state of attaining unexcelled complete perfect enlightenment."

The Buddha said, "That is so. That is so. Subhuti, in reality there is no state in which the Realized One attained unexcelled complete perfect enlightenment.

"Subhuti, if there were a state in which the Realized One attained unexcelled complete perfect enlightenment, the Dipankara would not have given me the prediction, `In a future age you will be a buddha named Shakyamuni.'

"Because there was in reality no state in which I attained unexcelled complete perfect enlightenment, therefore Dipankara Buddha gave me the prediction, saying, `In a future age you will be a buddha named Shakyamuni.' Why? Because the realization of the Realized One is the meaning of the suchness of all things.

"If anyone says that the Realized One has attained unexcelled complete perfect enlightenment, Subhuti, really there is no such thing as the Buddha attaining unexcelled complete perfect enlightenment. Subhuti, in hte unexcelled complete perfect enlightenment attained by the Realized One, there is neither reality nor unreality.

"Therefore, the Realized One says that all things are Buddha's teachings. SUbhuti, `all things' are not all things; therefore they are called `all things.'

"For example, Subhuti, it is like a person whose body is large."

Subhuti said, "World Honored One, the realized One says that a person whose body is large is not large bodied, but is called large bodied."

"Subhuti, bodhisattvas are also like this. If they say, `I am going to liberate countless living beings,' then they are not to be called bodhisattvas.

"Why? Subhuti, in reality there is no such thing as a `bodhisattva.' Therefore Buddha says that all things have no self, n o person, no being, and no liver of life.

"Subhuti, if bodhisattvas say, `I am going to adorn a buddha-land,' they are not to be called bodhisattvas. Why? The Realized One says that adorning buddha-lands is not adornment, it is called adornment.

"Subhuti, if bodhisattvas realize selflessness, the Realized One says they are tru bodhisattvas." [Translation by Thomas Cleary]

Subhuti asked: "How, Buddha, does one who seeks the Bodhisattva Path tread it?"

Buddha answered: "One who sets out on the Bodhisattva Path should coninuously think, 'I must lead all beings to absolute Nirvana; nevertheless even when all beings have been led to Nirvana, no being in reality has been led to Nirvana.' For if the idea of a being, entity or personality should arise in him, he is not a Bodhisattva. He who has set out on the Bodhisattva Path is not one of the dharmas.

"Do you think, Subhuti, that when the Tathagata was with the enlightened one there was any dharma by which he came to know supreme enlightenment?"

"There was not," Subhuti answered, "any dharma by which the Tathagata has known supreme enlightenment."

"For this reason," Buddha said, "Tathagata signifies attributelessness, and if someone were to say, `The Tathagata has fully known supreme enlightenment [text missing]' The dharma of the Tathagata is neither real nor unreal. Hence the Tathagata teaches that all dharmas are the Buddha's own special dharmas. Why? The Tathagata has taught that all dharmas together are no dharma named `Bodhisattva'?"

"No, Buddha," Subhuti answered.

"Thus," Buddha continued, "the Tathagata teached that all dharmas are selfless and are not beings, entities or personalities. Even if a Bodhisattva wished to create tranquil Buddha-fields, he should not be called a Bodhisattva, for the Tathagata has taught that tranquil Buddha-fields are not really tranquil Buddha-fields.

"Subhuti, the Bodhisattva who continually [d]wells on the selflessness of all dharmas, however, is known by the Tathagata, the supremely enlightened one, as a Bodhisattva of Great Courage." [Translation by Joshua Pritikin]

Again the venerable Subhuti asked the Buddha, "Bhagavan, if someone sets forth on the bodhisattva path, how should they stand? How should they walk? How should they control their thoughts?"

The Buddha said, "Subhuti, someone who sets forth on the bodhisttava path should give birth to the thought: 'In the realm of complete nirvana, I shall liberate all beings. And while I thus liberate beings, not a single being is liberated.' And why not? Subhuti, a bodhisattva who creates the perception of a being cannot be called a `bodhisattva.' Neither can someone who creates the perception of a life, or even the perception of a soul be called a `bodhisattva.' And why not? Subhuti, there is no such dharma as setting forth on the bodhisattva path.

"What do you think, Subhuti? When the Tathagata was with Dipankara Tathagata, did he realize any such dharma as unexcelled, perfect enlightenment?"

"To this the venerable Subhuti answered, "Bhagavan, as I understand the meaning of what the Tathagata has taught, when the tathagata was with Dipankara Tathagata, the Arhan, the Fully-Enlightened One, he did not realize any such dharma as unexcelled, perfect enlightenment."

And to this the Buddha replied, "So it is, Subhuti. So it is. When the Tathagata was with Dipankara Tathagata, the Arhan, the Fully-Enlightened One, he did not realize any such dharma as unexcelled, perfect enlightenment. Subhuti, if the Tathagata has realized any dharma, Dipankara Tathagata would not have prophesied, `Young man, in the future you shall become the tathagata, the arhan, the fully-enlightened one named Shakyamuni.' Subhuti, it was because the Tathagata, the Arhan, the Fully-Enlightened ONe did not realize any such dharma as unexcelled perfect enlightenment, that Dipankara Tathagata prophesied, `Young man, in the future you shall become the tathagata, the arhan, the fully enlightened one named Shakyamuni.'

"And how so? `Tathagata,' Subhuti, is another name for what is truly real. `Tathagata,' Subhuti, is another name for the dharma with no beginning. `Tathagata," Subhuti, is another name for what never begins. And how so? No beginning, Subhuti, is the highest truth. Subhuti, if anyone should claim, `The Tathagata, the Arhan, the Fully-Enlightened One realize unexcelled, perfect enlightenment,' such a claim would be untrue. Subhuti, they would be making a false statement about me. And how so? Subhuti, the Tathagata did not realize any such dharma as unexcelled perfect enlightenment. Furthermore, Subhuti, in the dharma realized or taught by the Tathagata, there is nothing true and nothing false. Thus, the Tathagata says `all dharmas are buddha dharmas.' And how so? `All dharmas,' Subhuti, are said by the Tathagata to be no dharmas. Thus are all dharmas called `buddha dharmas.'

"Subhuti, imagine a perfect person with an immense, perfect body."

The venerable Subhuti said, "Bhagavan, this perfect person whom the Tathagata says has an `immense perfect body,' Bhagavan, the Tathagata says has no body. Thus is it called an `immense, perfect body.'"

The Buddha said, "So it is, Subhuti. And if a bodhisattva says, "I shall liberate other beings,' that person is not called a `bodhisattva.' And why not? Subhuti, is there any such dharma as a bodhisattva?"

The venerable Subhuti replied, "No indeed, Bhagavan. There is no such dharma as a bodhisattva."

The Buddha said, "And beings, Subhuti, `beings' are said by the Tathagata to be no beings. Thus are they called `beings.' And thus does the tathagata say `all dharmas have no self, all dharmas have no life, no individuality, no soul.'

"Subhuti, if a bodhisattva should thus claim, `I shall bring about the transformation of a world,' such a claim would be untrue. And how so? The transformation of a world, Subhuti, the `transformation of a world' is said by the tathagata to be no transformation. Thus is it called the `transformation of a world.'

"Subhuti, when a bodhisattva resolves on selfless dharmas as `selfless dharmas,' the Tathagata, the Arhan, the Fully-Enlightened One pronounces that person a fearless bodhisattva."[Translation by Red Pine]