Part 7

[1] “The first of the Buddha’s bodies is the _Dharma-Kaya_ (body of the Law), supposed to be a kind of ethereal essence of a highly sublimated nature and co-extensive with space. This essence was believed to be eternal, and after the Buddha’s death, was represented by the Law or doctrine (_Dharma_) he taught.”

“The second body is the _Sambhoga-Kaya_, ‘body of conscious bliss,’ which is of a less ethereal and more material nature than the last. Its Brahmanical analogue appears to be the intermediate body (belonging to departed spirits) called _Bhoga-Deha_, which is of an ethereal character, though composed of sufficiently gross (Sthula) material particles to be capable of experiencing happiness or misery.”

“The third body is the _Nirmana-Kaya_, ‘body of visible shapes and transformations,’ that is to say, those various concrete material forms in which every Buddha who exists as an invisible and eternal essence, is manifested on the earth or elsewhere for the propagation of the true doctrine.”—_Buddhism_. Sir Monier Williams.

[2] “What think you then, O Subhuti, is a Tathagata to be seen (known) by the shape of his visible body? Subhuti said, not indeed, a Tathagata is not to be seen (known) by the shape of his visible body. And why? Because, what was preached as the shape of the visible body, the shape of the visible body indeed, that was preached by Tathagata as no-shape of the visible body, and therefore it is called the shape of the visible body.”—_The Vagrakkhedika_. Max Müller.

Herein is exemplification of the surpassing excellence of spiritual phenomena: although outwardly possessed of the thirty-two primal signs of a Buddha, there were also the essential evidences of those marvellous spiritual perfections which constitute the _real_ Buddha.—_Chinese Annotation_.

[Chapter 21]

The Lord Buddha addressed Subhuti, saying: “Do not affirm that the Lord Buddha thinks thus within himself, ‘I ought to promulgate a system of Law or doctrine.’ Have no such irrelevant thought! And why? Because, if a disciple affirmed that the Lord Buddha promulgated a system of Law or doctrine, he would defame the Lord Buddha, being manifestly unable to understand the purport of my instruction. Subhuti, regarding the promulgation of a ‘system of Law or doctrine,’ there is in reality no ‘system of Law or doctrine’ to promulgate, it is merely termed a ‘system of Law or doctrine.’”[1]

Upon that occasion, the virtuous and venerable Subhuti enquired of the Lord Buddha, saying: “Honoured of the Worlds! in ages to come, will sentient beings destined to hear this Law,[2] engender within their minds the essential elements of faith?” The Lord Buddha replied, saying: “Subhuti, it cannot be asserted that these are sentient beings, or that these are not sentient beings. And why? Because, Subhuti, regarding ‘sentient beings,’ the Lord Buddha declared that in reality these are not ‘sentient beings,’ they are merely termed ‘sentient beings.’” [3]

[1] “Bhagavat said: What do you think, O Subhuti, does Tathagata think in this wise: the Law has been taught by me? Subhuti said: Not indeed, O Bhagavat, does the Tathagata think in this wise: the Law has been taught by me. Bhagavat said: If a man should say that the Law has been taught by the Tathagata, he would say what is not true; he would slander me with untruth which he has learned. And why? Because, O Subhuti, it is said the teaching of the Law, the teaching of the Law indeed, O Subhuti, there is nothing that can be perceived by the name of the teaching of the Law.”—_The Vagrakkhedika_. Max Müller.

Eminent wisdom possesses the natural beauty of a pellucid stream, flowing swiftly between rugged mountain crags; but a mind at rest from ‘systems of Law or doctrine,’ is reminiscent of the loveliness of a waterfall, frozen into shining icicles, and resplendent in the light of the moon.—_Chinese Annotation_.

[2] “He is the best of all guides of men, no other being is like unto him; he is like a jewel, of imperishable glory, who hears this Law with a pure heart.”—_The Buddha-Karita_. E. B. Cowell.

[3] “Bhagavat said: These, O Subhuti, are neither beings nor no-beings. And why? Because, O Subhuti, those who were preached as beings, beings indeed, they were preached as no-beings by the Tathagata, and therefore they are called beings.”—_The Vagrakkhedika_. Max Müller.

Although these are ordinarily referred to as sentient beings, there are spiritual elements in their real natures, which place them in a category only imperfectly described by the term “sentient beings”; but possessing also evident material qualities, it might be an error to assert that these are not “sentient beings”; hence the declaration of the Lord Buddha, “they are merely termed sentient beings.”—_Chinese Annotation_.

[Chapter 22]

Subhuti enquired of the Lord Buddha, saying: “Honoured of the Worlds! did the Lord Buddha, in attaining to supreme spiritual wisdom, obtain nothing of a real or tangible nature?” The Lord Buddha replied, saying: “In attaining to supreme spiritual wisdom, not a vestige of Law or doctrine was obtained,[1] and therefore it is termed ‘supreme spiritual wisdom.’”

[1]“To affirm the existence of anything real or tangible in the nature of the Law, would be tantamount to being firmly bound by the Law; but to affirm that ‘not even the vestige of Law or doctrine was obtained,’ is the equivalent of being absolutely free from the Law.”—_Yen-Ping_ (a Chinese monk).

“Buddha said: ‘True, true, Subhuti! I, as possessed of this heart, have come into the condition above described. This term the unsurpassed, just, and enlightened heart, is but a mere name.’”—_Kin-Kong-King_. Beal.

[Chapter 23]

The Lord Buddha addressed Subhuti, saying: “This Law is coherent and indivisible,[1] it is neither ‘above’ nor ‘below,’[2] therefore it is termed ‘supreme spiritual wisdom.’ It excludes such arbitrary ideas as an entity, a being, a living being, or a personality; but includes every Law pertaining to the cultivation of goodness.[3] Subhuti, what were referred to as ‘Laws pertaining to goodness,’ these the Lord Buddha declared are not in reality ‘Laws pertaining to goodness,’ they are merely termed ‘Laws pertaining to goodness.’”[4]

[1] The Abbé Dubois in his valuable book, _Hindu Manners, Customs, and Ceremonies_, carefully observes that amongst the attributes which the Jains ascribe to the Supreme Being, the first is that He is “one” and “indivisible”; and this observation of the learned Abbé becomes quite illuminating, when we remember the intimate relationship which has existed between the Jains and the Law of Buddha.

[2] “Within it first arose desire, the primal germ of mind, Which nothing with existence links, as sages searching find. The cord, transversely stretched, that spanned this universal frame, Was it beneath? was it above? can any sage proclaim?”

“Progress of the Vedic religion towards abstract conceptions of the Deity.” J. Muir (_Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society_).

[3] “Free from self, free from life, free from personality, that highest perfect knowledge is always the same, and thus known with all good things. And why? Because, what was preached as good things, good things, indeed, O Subhuti, they were preached by the Tathagata as no-things, and therefore are they called good things.”—_The Vagrakkhedika_. Max Müller.

“This condition which is named the unsurpassed, just, and enlightened (heart), consists in nothing more than the exclusion of all individual distinctions. A man who practices all the rules of virtuous conduct will forthwith attain this condition. But, Subhuti, when we speak of rules of virtuous conduct, Tathagata declares that these rules are after all no real and lasting rules; the term is but a mere name,”—_Kin-Kong-King_. Beal.

[4] The six Paramita—charity, morality, endurance, energy, contemplation, wisdom, comprehended under the term “Laws pertaining to goodness,” merely constitute an open door by means of which disciples are ushered into the presence of truth.—_Chinese Annotation_.

[Chapter 24]

The Lord Buddha addressed Subhuti, saying: “If within this universe of universes, the seven treasures[1] were heaped together, forming as many great elevations as there are Sumerus, prince of mountains, and these treasures bestowed entirely in the exercise of charity; and if a disciple were to select a stanza of this Scripture, rigorously observe it, and diligently explain it to others, the merit[2] thus obtained would so far exceed the former excellence, that it cannot be stated in terms of proportion, nor comprehended by any analogy.”[3]

[1] Gold, silver, pearls, coral, cornelian, glass, and crystal.

[2] “And whosoever in days when the good Law is abolished, abandons love for his own body and life, and proclaims day and night these good words—pre-eminent is his merit from this.”

“He obtains a glorious and endless splendour who teaches even one word thereof; he will not miss one consonant nor the meaning who gives this Sutra to others.”

“Therefore let those who are endowed with lofty ambitions, always hear this Law which causes transcendent merit; let them hear it and gladly welcome it and lay it up in their minds and continually worship the three jewels (the Buddha, the Law, and the assembly of monks) with faith.”—_Buddha-Karita_. E. B. Cowell.

[3] “I declare that his happiness and consequent merit would be incomparably greater than that of the other, so much so, that no number could express the excess of one over the other.”—_Kin-Kong-King_. Beal.

[Chapter 25]

The Lord Buddha addressed Subhuti, saying: “What think you? You disciples, do not affirm that the Lord Buddha reflects thus within himself, ‘I bring salvation to every living being.’ Subhuti, entertain no such delusive thought! And why? Because, in reality there are no living beings to whom the Lord Buddha can bring salvation.[1] If there were living beings to whom the Lord Buddha could bring salvation, the Lord Buddha would necessarily assume the reality of such arbitrary concepts as an entity, a being, a living being, and a personality. Subhuti, what the Lord Buddha adverted to as an entity, is not in reality an entity; it is only understood to be an entity, and believed in as such, by the common, uneducated people. Subhuti, what are ordinarily referred to as the ‘common, uneducated people,’ these the Lord Buddha declared to be not merely ‘common, uneducated people.’”[2]

[1] As the primordial human mind is void and quiescent, so also is the wisdom of this Sutra full and overflowing. Therefore, hearing the text of this Sutra expounded, and meditating upon its truth, there are formed spontaneously within the minds of those living beings, all the essential elements of salvation. As these mature and develop into a Law of spiritual liberty, the Lord Buddha obviously relinquishes every duty consonant with the idea of a delegated Saviour.—_Chinese Annotation_.

“What do you think then, O Subhuti, does a Tathagata think in this wise: beings have been delivered by me? You should not think so. And why? Because, there is no being that has been delivered by the Tathagata. And if there were a being, O Subhuti, that had been delivered by the Tathagata, then Tathagata would believe in a self, a being, a living being, and a person. And what is called a belief in self, O Subhuti, that is preached as a no-belief by the Tathagata. And this is learned by children and ignorant persons, and they who were preached as children and ignorant persons, O Subhuti, were preached as no-persons by the Tathagata, and therefore they are called children and ignorant persons.”—_The Vagrakkhedika_. Max Müller.

[2] “Difference there is in beings endowed with bodies, but amongst men this is not the case, the difference amongst men is nominal only.”—_Dhammapada_. Max Müller.

“Worldly profit is fleeting and perishable, religious (holy) profit is eternal and inexhaustible; a man though a king is full of trouble, a common man who is holy, has everlasting rest.”—_Fo-Sho-Hing-Tsan-King_. Beal.

[Chapter 26]

The Lord Buddha addressed Subhuti, saying: “Can the Lord Buddha be perceived by means of his thirty-two bodily distinctions?”[1] Subhuti replied, saying: “Even so,[2] the Lord Buddha can be perceived by means of his thirty-two bodily distinctions.”

The Lord Buddha, continuing, said unto Subhuti: “If by means of his thirty-two bodily distinctions it were possible to perceive the Lord Buddha, then the Lord Buddha would merely resemble one of the great wheel-turning kings.”[3]

Subhuti thereupon addressed the Lord Buddha, saying: “Honoured of the Worlds! According as I am able to interpret the Lord Buddha’s instruction, it is improbable that the Lord Buddha may be perceived by means of his thirty-two bodily distinctions.”

Thereafter, the “Honoured of the Worlds” delivered this sublime Gatha:

“I am not to be perceived by means of any visible form, Nor sought after by means of any audible sound; Whosoever walks in the way of iniquity, Cannot perceive the blessedness of the Lord Buddha.”[4]

[1] “This probably refers to the auspicious signs discovered in Sakyamuni at his birth, which left it open whether he would become a king or a Buddha.”—_The Vagrakkhedika_. Max Müller.

[2] Subhuti failed to apprehend the idea as expressed by the Lord Buddha, and inadvertently replied, saying: “Even so, Even so.”—_Chinese Annotation_.

[3] “The portends troubled, till his dream readers Augured a prince of earthly dominance, A Chakravartin, such as rise to rule Once in a thousand years.”—_The Light of Asia_. Sir Edwin Arnold.

“A king who rules the world, and causes the wheel of doctrine everywhere to revolve. The great Asoka (King of Central India, who reigned near Patna, about 150–200 years after the demise of Buddha) was a ‘wheel king.’ The word is Chakravarti in Sanscrit, from Chakra ‘wheel,’ the symbol of activity, whether of Buddha in preaching, or of kings like Asoka in ruling.”—_Chinese Buddhism_. Edkins.

“Those of the Bikkhus who carry in their hearts the words of excellent knowledge that is immeasurable, who are free from bonds, whose fame and power and glory no man can weigh, who (in imitation of their master) keep the royal chariot wheel of the kingdom of righteousness rolling on, who have reached perfection in knowledge.”—_Questions of King Milinda_. T. W. Rhys Davids.

[4] The following Gatha, translated by Max Müller, and concluding the twenty-sixth section of _The Vagrakkhedika_, is not incorporated in the Chinese text.

“A Buddha is to be seen (known) from the Law; For the Lords (Buddha) have the Law-Body; And the nature of the Law cannot be understood, Nor can it be made to be understood.”

[Chapter 27]

The Lord Buddha said unto Subhuti: “If you think thus within yourself ‘The Lord Buddha did not, by means of his perfect bodily distinctions, obtain supreme spiritual wisdom,’ Subhuti, have no such deceptive thought! Or if you think thus within yourself, ‘In obtaining supreme spiritual wisdom, the Lord Buddha declared the abrogation of every Law,’ Subhuti, have no such delusive thought! And why? Because, those disciples who obtain supreme spiritual wisdom, neither affirm the abrogation of any Law, nor the destruction of any distinctive quality of phenomena.”[1]

[1] “What do you think then, O Subhuti, has the highest perfect knowledge been known by the Tathagata by the possession of signs? You should not think so, O Subhuti. And why? Because, the highest perfect knowledge will not be known by the Tathagata through the possession of signs. Nor should anybody, O Subhuti, say to you that the destruction or annihilation of anything is proclaimed by those who have entered on the path of the Bodhisattvas.”—_The Vagrakkhedika_. Max Müller.

“Subhuti, if you should think thus, ‘Tathagata, by means of his personal distinctions has attained to the unsurpassable condition,’ you would be wrong.... But, Subhuti, do not come to such an opinion as this, viz., ‘that what is called the unsurpassed, just, and enlightened heart is nothing more than the mere neglect and destruction of all rules and conditions.’ Think not so, for why? the exhibition of this perfect and unsurpassed heart is not the consequence of having disregarded and destroyed all rules, in the active discharge of duty.”—_Kin-Kong-King_. Beal.

Concerning the phenomena of Law, if these were abrogated and entirely discarded, where would the mind receive its guiding light, or the human spirit its power of discernment? To attempt a process of reasoning apart from such necessary postulates as the distinctive qualities of Law and phenomena, would prove to be as futile as an effort to cross a river without a raft, and would inevitably end in oblivion.—_Chinese Annotation_.

[Chapter 28]

The Lord Buddha addressed Subhuti, saying: “If an enlightened disciple, in the exercise of charity, bestowed as considerable an amount of the seven treasures as might fill worlds numerous as the sands of the Ganges; and if a disciple, realising that within the meaning and purport of the Law, there is no abstract individual existence,[1] perfects himself in the virtue of endurance, this latter disciple will have a cumulative merit, relatively greater than the other. And why? Because, enlightened disciples are entirely unaffected by considerations of ‘reward or merit.’”

Subhuti thereupon enquired of the Lord Buddha, saying: “Honoured of the Worlds! in what respect are enlightened disciples unaffected by considerations of ‘reward or merit’?” The Lord Buddha replied, saying: “Enlightened disciples do not aspire, in a spirit of covetousness, to rewards commensurate with their merit; therefore, I declare that they are entirely unaffected by considerations of ‘reward or merit.’”[2]

[1] “And if a Bodhisattva acquired endurance in selfless and uncreated things, then he would enjoy a larger stock of merit, immeasurable and innumerable.”—_The Vagrakkhedika_. Max Müller.

“Nothing in this world is single, All things by a law divine In one another’s being mingle.”—Shelley.

[2] “Subhuti asked Buddha: World-honoured One! what is this you say, that Bodhisatwas cannot be said to appreciate reward? ‘Subhuti, the reward which a Bodhisatwa enjoys ought to be connected with no covetous desire; this is what I mean by non-appreciation of reward.’”—_Kin-Kong-King_. Beal.

This passage, concluding the twenty-eighth section of _The Diamond Sutra_, not being incorporated in the translation of _The Vagrakkhedika_ by Max Müller, may be suggestive of a noteworthy interpolation in the Chinese text, or is it a probable lacuna in the Sanscrit MSS.?

[Chapter 29]

The Lord Buddha addressed Subhuti, saying: “If a disciple asserts that the Lord Buddha comes or goes, sits or reclines, obviously he has not understood the meaning of my discourse. And why? Because, the idea ‘Buddha’ implies neither coming from anywhere, nor going to anywhere, and hence the synonym ‘Buddha!’”[1]

[1] “And why? Because the word Tathagata means one who does not go to anywhere, and does not come from anywhere, and therefore he is called the Tathagata (truly come), holy and fully enlightened.”—_The Vagrakkhedika_. Max Müller.

“That which is Tathagata has no where whence to come, and no where whither he can go, and is therefore named Tathagata.”—_Kin-Kong-King_. Beal.

In the heavens above, we cannot discern a place whence he came, nor whither he may return. In his holy, immaculate, and marvellously endowed body, were manifested plenary spiritual powers.—_Hua-Yen-Sutra_.

Like drifting clouds, like the waning moon, like ships that sail the ocean, like shores that are washed away—these are symbolic of endless change. But the blessed Buddha, in his essential, absolute nature, is changeless and everlasting.—_Yuen-Chioh-Sutra_.

“If the pool be of pure water, the shining moon is reflected upon its limpid surface; and yet we cannot affirm that the moon really came from anywhere, or that it is actually in the pool. If the pool be disturbed and the dense mud raised, immediately the bright reflection becomes obscured; and yet we dare not affirm that the moon has really gone to anywhere, or that it has actually departed from the pool. It is entirely a question of the purity or impurity of the water, and has no reasonable affinity with theories concerning the existence or non-existence of the moon. So, also, with the true concept of Buddha; only those whose minds are immaculate in their pristine purity, can ever realise his transcendent blessedness.”—_Chang-Shui_ (a Chinese monk).

[Chapter 30]

The Lord Buddha addressed Subhuti, saying: “If a good disciple, whether man or woman, were to take infinite worlds and ‘reduce’ them to minute particles of dust; what think you, would the aggregate of all those particles of dust be great?” Subhuti replied, saying: “Honoured of the Worlds! the aggregate of all those particles of dust would be exceedingly great. And why? Because, if all those were in reality ‘minute particles of dust,’ the Lord Buddha would not have declared them to be ‘minute particles of dust.’ And why? Because, the Lord Buddha, discoursing upon ‘minute particles of dust,’ declared that in reality those are not ‘minute particles of dust,’ they are merely termed ‘minute particles of dust.’”[1]

Subhuti continuing, addressed the Lord Buddha, saying: “Honoured of the Worlds! what the Lord Buddha discoursed upon as ‘infinite worlds,’ these are not in reality ‘infinite worlds,’ they are merely termed ‘infinite worlds.’ And why? Because, if these were in reality ‘infinite worlds,’ there would of necessity be unity and eternity of matter. But the Lord Buddha, discoursing upon the ‘unity and eternity of matter,’ declared that there is neither ‘unity’ nor ‘eternity of matter,’ therefore it is merely termed ‘unity and eternity of matter.’”

The Lord Buddha thereupon declared unto Subhuti, “Belief in the unity or eternity of matter is incomprehensible;[2] and only common, worldly-minded people, for purely materialistic reasons, covet this hypothesis.”

[1] These minute particles of dust, like the great worlds which are composed of them, are deceptive forms of natural phenomena, equally unreal and evanescent. The minute particles which we observe floating in space, are carried hither and thither by atmospheric currents, and eventually pass into regions beyond our cognisance. So, also, with the immense worlds revolving in space; their ever-recurring phenomena of light and darkness, heat and cold, changing seasons, transient scenes of mountain and valley, river and plain. These things indicate that all are ephemeral, and entirely subject to irrevocable laws of change and decay.—_Chinese Annotation_.

“Because, what was preached as a mass of many atoms by the Tathagata, that was preached as no-mass of atoms by the Tathagata, and therefore it is called ‘a mass of many atoms.’”—_The Vagrakkhedika_. Max Müller.

“What then, if Buddha speaks of all these particles, then they are not really what they are called, it is but a mere name, World-Honoured One!”—_Kin-Kong-King_. Beal.

[2] “Bhagavat said, and a belief in matter itself, O Subhuti, is inestimable and inexpressible; it is neither a thing nor a no-thing, and this is known by children and ignorant persons.”—_The Vagrakkhedika_. Max Müller.

“Annihilation of matter is inconceivable, but annihilation of all its forms and qualities is conceivable.” _The World as Idea and Will_. Schopenhauer.