Chapter III: Part 3

[18] “The omniscience of Buddha is not the knowledge of all
things, but the power of knowing whatever he wishes to know. In
opposition to other teachers, who deduce their doctrines from
certain previously assumed principles, and who may err either in
the data, or in the deductions from them. Buddha affirms of
himself that the complete field of truth is before him, that the
eye of wisdom to perceive it was obtained by him when he became a
Buddha; and whatever he desires to know he perceives perfectly,
and at one glance, without any reasoning process.”—(Rev. D. J.
Gogerly, in the _Ceylon Friend_. Quoted by R. Spence Hardy, in
_Eastern Monachism_).

[Chapter 15]

The Lord Buddha addressed Subhuti, saying: “If a good disciple, whether man or woman, in the morning, at noonday, and at eventide, sacrificed lives innumerable as the sands of the Ganges, and thus without intermission throughout infinite ages; and if another disciple, hearing this Scripture proclaimed, steadfastly believed it, his felicity would be appreciably greater than the other. But how much greater must be the felicity of a disciple who transcribes the sacred text, observes its precepts, studies its Laws, and repeats the Scripture that others may be edified thereby?”

“Subhuti, the relative importance of this Scripture may thus be summarily stated: its truth is infinite; its worth incomparable; and its merit interminable.”

“The Lord Buddha delivered this Scripture specifically for those who are entered upon the path which leads to Nirvana, and for those who are attaining to the ultimate plane of Buddhic thought.[1] If a disciple rigorously observes, studies, and widely disseminates the knowledge of this Scripture, the Lord Buddha entirely knows and perceives that for such an one there will be a cumulative merit, immeasurable, incomparable, illimitable, and inconceivable. All such disciples will be endowed with transcendent Buddhic wisdom and enlightenment.[2] And why? Because, Subhuti, if a disciple takes pleasure in a narrow or exclusive form of the Law,[3] he cannot receive with gratification[4] the instruction of this Scripture, or delight in its study, or fervently explain it to others. Subhuti, in whatever place there is a repository for this Scripture, the whole realm of spiritual beings ought to adore it; and reverencing it as a sacred shrine,[5] ceremoniously surround it, scattering profusely sweet-scented flowers, and pure odours of fragrant incense.”[6]

[1] Literally, for the _ta-cheng-che_—those of the great vehicle, _i.e._, the Mahayana faith. “They taught (the Mahayana school) that there were two methods of salvation, or, so to speak, two ways or two vehicles—the great and the little (Maha-Yana and Hina-Yana)—and indeed two Bodhis or forms of true knowledge which these vehicles had to convey (there was also a middle way). The former was for ordinary persons, the latter for beings of larger talents and higher spiritual powers.”—_Buddhism_. Sir Monier Williams.

“Therefore let one always be thoughtful, and avoid (gross)
pleasures; having abandoned them, let him cross the stream, after
baling out the ship, and go to the other shore
(Nirvana).”—_Dhammapada_. Max Müller.

[2] “All these beings will equally remember the _Bodhi_ (the
highest Buddhic knowledge), will receive it and understand
it.”—_The Vagrakkhedika_. Max Müller.

“All men being one with _ho-tan_ (Gautama?) Tathagata, arrive at
the state of the unsurpassed, just, and enlightened
(heart).”—_Kin-Kong-King_. Beal.

The Chinese phrase “_ho-tan-Ju-Lai_,” may mean to bear upon the
person evidences of the Lord Buddha. Compare the statement of the
apostle Paul, “I bear in my body evidences of the Lord Jesus
Christ.”

[3] Those disciples associated with the _Siao-Fah_ (little Law,
the Hinayana school of Buddhist thought), are rather ungraciously
referred to by a Chinese commentator as “rootless stems”; by which
we are reminded of the Hindoo aphorism, “from the absence of a
root within the root, all things are rootless.”

[4] When the Lord Buddha delivered the Sutra known as the _Lotus
of the Good Law_, it is recorded that five thousand followers
forsook him, owing to what they regarded as a grave difficulty in
complying with its intensely abstruse doctrines.

[5] “In these two places also Topes (where relics of Buddha are
deposited and safeguarded) have been built, both adorned with
layers of all the previous substances (gold, silver, pearls,
coral, cornelian, glass, and crystal). The kings, ministers, and
peoples of the kingdoms vie with one another in making offerings
at them. The trains of those who come to scatter flowers and light
lamps at them never cease.”—_The Travels of Fa-Hien_. Legge.

This descriptive scene concerning the endless trains of pilgrims
who lit their lamps at the sacred shrine, may recall to our minds
the beautifully expressed line in Sophocles’ _Œdipus Coloneus_,
thus rendered by Professor Jebb, _The torch-lit strand_ of Eleusis.

[6] “Then the king, with his assembled ministers and all the
priests belonging to the capital (of Kashmir), advanced to the
preaching hall (_Dharmasala_) and escorted him (the Master of the
Law) onwards, being altogether something like a thousand men, with
standards and parasols, with incense and flowers filling the
roads. When they met (the Master of the Law) they all performed a
humble salutation, and spread before him countless flowers as
religious offerings.”—_The Life of Hiuen-Tsang_. Beal.

[Chapter 16]

The Lord Buddha, continuing, addressed Subhuti, saying: “If a good disciple, whether man or woman, devoted to the observance and study of this Scripture, is thereby despised, or lightly esteemed,[1] it is because that in a previous life there had been committed some grievous transgression, followed now by inexorable retribution.[2] But, although in this life despised or lightly esteemed, the compensating merit thus acquired will cause the transgression of a former life to be fully expiated, and the disciple adequately recompensed by the attainment of supreme spiritual wisdom.”

“Furthermore, Subhuti, numberless ages ago, I recollect that before the advent of Dipankara Buddha, there were myriad Buddhas before whom I served and received religious instruction, my conduct being entirely blameless and without reproach. But, in the ages to come, if a disciple be enabled to rigorously observe and to study the text of this Scripture, the merit thus acquired will so far exceed the measure of my merit in the service of those myriad Buddhas, that it cannot be stated in terms of proportion, nor comprehended by means of any ‘analogy.’”

“Again, Subhuti, in future ages, if a good disciple, whether man or woman, be enabled to rigorously observe and to study consecutively the texts of this Scripture, were I to elaborate either the nature or extent of this merit, those who heard it might become delirious, or entirely doubt its credibility.[3] Subhuti, it is necessary to realise, that as the meaning of this Scripture is beyond ordinary comprehension, the scope of its fruitful rewards is equally incomprehensible.”[4]

[1] “Whoever reviles Buddha or his disciple, be he a wandering
mendicant, or a householder, let one know him as an
outcast.”—_Sutta-Nipata_. V. Fausböll.

[2] “Whatever evil deeds these beings have done in a former birth,
deeds that must lead to suffering, those deeds these beings, owing
to their being overcome, after they have seen the Law, will
destroy, and they will obtain the knowledge of Buddha.”—_The
Vagrakkhedika_. Max Müller.

“According to the Buddha ... all men must suffer in their own
persons either in the present life, or in future lives, the
consequences of their own acts.... The penalty of sin could not be
transferred to another—it could only be borne by the sinner
himself, just as the reward of virtue could only be enjoyed by the
virtuous man himself.”—_Hinduism_. Sir Monier Williams.

[3] Literally, “become as doubtful as a fox.”

[4] “For as the method and entire meaning of this Sutra is not to
be described or entirely conceived, so the merit and happy
consequences of accepting it cannot be conceived or
described.”—_Kin-Kong-King_. Beal.

[Chapter 17]

Upon that occasion, the venerable Subhuti addressed the Lord Buddha, saying: “Honoured of the Worlds! if a good disciple, whether man or woman, having desired to attain to supreme spiritual wisdom, what immutable Law shall support the mind of that disciple, and bring into subjection every inordinate desire?”[1]

The Lord Buddha replied, saying: “A good disciple, whether man or woman, ought thus to habituate his mind:[2] ‘I must become oblivious to every idea of sentient life; and having become oblivious to every idea of sentient life, there is _no one_ to whom the idea of sentient life has become oblivious.’[3] And why? Because, Subhuti, if an enlightened disciple retains within his mind such arbitrary ideas of sentient life as an entity, a being, a living being, or a personality, he has not attained to supreme spiritual wisdom. And why? Because, Subhuti, there is no Law by means of which a disciple may be defined as one having obtained supreme spiritual wisdom.”[4]

The Lord Buddha addressed Subhuti, saying: “What think you? When the Lord Buddha was a disciple of Dipankara Buddha, was there bequeathed to him any Law whereby he attained to supreme spiritual wisdom?” Subhuti replied, saying: “No! Honoured of the Worlds! inasmuch as I am able to comprehend the meaning of the Lord Buddha’s discourse, when the Lord Buddha was a disciple of Dipankara Buddha, there was no Law bequeathed to him whereby he attained to supreme spiritual wisdom.”

The Lord Buddha endorsed these words, saying:[5] “Truly there is no Law by means of which the Lord Buddha obtained supreme spiritual wisdom. Subhuti, if there existed a Law by means of which the Lord Buddha obtained supreme spiritual wisdom, Dipankara Buddha would not have foretold at my initiation, ‘In future ages[6] thou shalt become Sakyamuni Buddha.’ But, in reality, there is no Law by means of which supreme spiritual wisdom can be obtained. Therefore, at my initiation, Dipankara Buddha foretold concerning me, ‘In future ages, thou shalt become Sakyamuni Buddha.’ And why? Because, in the word _Buddha_.[7] every Law is summarily and intelligibly comprehended.” “If a disciple affirmed that the Lord Buddha attained to supreme spiritual wisdom, it is necessary to state that there is no Law whereby this condition of mind can be realised. The supreme spiritual wisdom to which the Lord Buddha attained, cannot, in its essence, be defined as real or unreal. Thus, the Lord Buddha declared that the ordinarily accepted term, ‘the Buddhic Law,’ is synonymous with every moral and spiritual Law. Subhuti, what are ordinarily declared to be ‘systems of Law,’ are not in reality ‘systems of Law,’ they are merely termed ‘systems of Law.’”

The Lord Buddha enquired of Subhuti, saying: “Can you imagine a man having a great physical body?” Subhuti replied, saying: “The Lord Buddha, discoursing upon the proportions of a physical body, did not maintain for these any _real_ greatness, therefore it is merely termed ‘a great body.”’

The Lord Buddha, thereupon, addressed Subhuti, saying: “Thus it is with an enlightened disciple: if he were to expatiate after this manner, ‘I must become oblivious to every idea of sentient life,’[8] he could not be described as fully enlightened. And why? Because, there is no Law whereby a disciple can be approved as ‘fully enlightened.’[9] Therefore, the Lord Buddha declared that within the realm of spiritual Law, there is neither an entity, a being, a living being, nor a personality.”

The Lord Buddha addressed Subhuti, saying: “If an enlightened disciple were to speak in this wise, ‘I shall create numerous Buddhist kingdoms,’ he could not be designated ‘fully enlightened.’ And why? Because, the Lord Buddha, discoursing upon ‘creating numerous Buddhist kingdoms,’ did not affirm the idea of creating numerous ‘material’ Buddhist kingdoms, hence the ‘creation of numerous Buddhist kingdoms’ is merely a figure of speech. Subhuti, the Lord Buddha declared that a disciple may be regarded as ‘truly enlightened,’ whose mind is thoroughly imbued with the Law of non-individuality.”[10]

[1] “Let a man restraining all these remain in devotion.... For
he, whose senses are under his control, possesses spiritual
knowledge. Attachments to objects of sense arise in a man who
meditates upon them; from attachment arises desire; from desire
passion springs up; from passion comes bewilderment; from
bewilderment, confusion of the memory; from confusion of the
memory, destruction of the intellect; from destruction of the
intellect, he perishes.”—_Bhagavad-Gita_. J. Cockburn Thomson.

[2] “He should thus frame his thought: all things must be
delivered by me in the perfect world of Nirvana.... And why?
Because, O Subhuti, there is no such thing as one who has entered
on the path of the Bodhisattva.”—_The Vagrakkhedika_. Max Müller.

[3] “Such scenes as the following, illustrating the beliefs of the
time and the locality, would not seldom occur. A wayfarer in the
country of the Getæ (Jats) (Afghanistan) knocks at the door of a
Brahman family. A young man within answers: ‘There is No One in
this house.’ The traveller was too well taught in Buddhism not to
know the meaning of this philosophical nihilism, and at once
answered, ‘Who is No One?’ The young man, when he heard this, felt
that he was understood. A kindred spirit was outside. Hurriedly he
opened the door, and invited the stranger to enter. The visitor
was the patriarch of the time (seventeenth), with staff and rice
bowl, travelling to teach and make new disciples.”—_Chinese
Buddhism_. Edkins.

[4] Most writers on the Buddhist faith and religion have occasion
to refer to the series of events which culminated in the Lord
Buddha obtaining “supreme enlightenment.” The founder of the
Buddhist faith, dissatisfied with the practice of asceticism, and
disappointed by his unfaithful disciples, walked meditatively
towards the river Nairanjara, where Sujata, “the daughter of a
neighbouring villager,” provided him with his morning meal.
Seating himself under a sacred Bo-Tree, immediately he became
engaged in the severest of mental conflicts. The Buddhist authors
describe their Master as sitting “sublime,” “calm,” and “serene”
throughout the sustained assault of a “visible” and wicked
tempter, assisted by legions of evil spirits. So unrelenting was
the fierce encounter, that the forces of nature shook and were
convulsed under the dreadful onslaught. As the day advanced, the
spiritual elements in Buddha’s nature gradually gained the
ascendency; and when he became “fully enlightened,” there was
revealed to him an antidote for human woe. The mind of the Lord
Buddha thereafter assumed an aspect of perfect peace; “and in _the
power over the human heart of inward culture, and of love to
others_,” the great Teacher discovered a foundation of Truth,
where, with assurance of faith, he could securely rest. As Milton
regarded “Paradise” to be “regained” in the wilderness, and not on
Calvary; in like manner the Buddhist poets indicate a belief that
the experience of their Master under the Bo-Tree was the most
eventful in his history. That is the reason they regard the
Bo-Tree with a reverence resembling the Christian veneration of
the Cross. (Compare Davids’ _Buddhism_.)

[5] Buddha said: “Right! Right! Subhuti, there is in truth no
fixed Law (by which) Tathagata attained this condition. Subhuti,
if there had been such a Law, then Dipankara Buddha would not have
said in delivering the prediction concerning me: ‘you in after
ages must attain to the state of Buddha, and your name shall be
Sakyamuni,’ so that because there is indeed no fixed Law for
attaining the condition of ‘the perfect heart,’ on that account it
was Dipankara Buddha delivered his prediction in such
words.”—_Kin-Kong-King_. Beal.

[6] “To the pious Buddhist it is a constant source of joy and
gratitude that ‘the Buddha,’ not only then, but in many former
births, when emancipation from all the cares and troubles of life
was already within his reach, should again and again, in mere love
for man, have condescended to enter the world, and live amidst the
sorrows inseparable from finite existence.”—_Buddhism_. T. W. Rhys
Davids.

[7] “And why, O Subhuti, the name of Tathagata? It expresses ‘true
suchness.’ And why Tathagata, O Subhuti? It expresses that ‘he had
no origin.’ And why Tathagata, O Subhuti? It expresses ‘the
destruction of all qualities.’ And why Tathagata, O Subhuti? It
expresses ‘one who has no origin whatever.’ And why this? Because,
O Subhuti, ‘no origin is the highest goal.’”—_The Vagrakkhedika_.
Max Müller.

The familiar word Buddha, seems to convey to devout Buddhist
minds, a meaning consonant with the ethical idea of Love, as
understood generally by the followers of Christ. Within it are
potential spiritual elements, which, according to their judgment,
perfectly fulfil the Law. The Chinese text, _Ju-Lai-che,
chi-chu-fah-ru-i_, may bear the following interpretation, _Buddha
is the One in whom all Laws become intelligible_. With this
particular definition before us, and bearing in mind the general
substance of the Mahayana faith, we may perhaps appreciate the
sense in which the distinguished missionary, Dr Richard of
Shanghai, ventured to render the Chinese term _Ju-Lai_ (Buddha),
in a translation of Asvaghocha’s _The Awakening of Faith_, by the
English synonym God. Few Christians would controvert the statement
_that God, is the One in whom all Laws become intelligible!_

[8] “And if a Bodhisattva were to say: ‘I shall deliver all
beings,’ he ought not to be called a Bodhisattva. And why? Is
there anything, O Subhuti, that is called a Bodhisattva? Subhuti
said: ‘Not indeed!’ Bhagavat said: ‘Those who were spoken of as
beings, beings indeed, O Subhuti, they were spoken of as no beings
by the Tathagata, and, therefore, they are called beings.
Therefore Tathagata says: “All beings are without self, all beings
are without life, without manhood, without personality.”’”—_The
Vagrakkhedika_. Max Müller.

“Subhuti, so it is with the Bodhisatwa, if he should say: ‘I ought
to destroy all recollection of the countless kinds of creatures,’
this Bodhisatwa would not be really one, but only a nominal
one.... Hence Buddha says that all things ought to be without any
individual distinction.”—_Kin-Kong-King_. Beal.

[9] “The fountain of knowledge is the pure, bright,
self-enlightening mind.”—_Twan-Tsi-Sin-Yao_ (_Tang Dynasty_).
Compare Edkins’ _Chinese Buddhism_.

[10] “A Bodhisattva, O Subhuti, who believes that all things are
without self, he has faith, he is called a noble-minded
Bodhisattva by the holy and fully enlightened Tathagata.”—_The
Vagrakkhedika_. Max Müller.

In the _Mo-Wei-Sutra_, the ordinary concepts of an entity, a
being, a living being, or a personality, are referred to as
_blots_ or _stains_ upon the mind.

[Chapter 18]

The Lord Buddha enquired of Subhuti, saying: “What think you? Does the Lord Buddha possess the physical eye?” Subhuti assented, saying: “Honoured of the Worlds! the Lord Buddha truly possesses the physical eye.”

The Lord Buddha enquired of Subhuti, saying: “What think you? Does the Lord Buddha possess the divine or spiritual eye?” Subhuti assented, saying: “Honoured of the Worlds! the Lord Buddha truly possesses the divine or spiritual eye.”

The Lord Buddha enquired of Subhuti, saying: “What think you? Does the Lord Buddha possess the eye of wisdom?” Subhuti assented, saying: “Honoured of the Worlds! the Lord Buddha truly possesses the eye of wisdom.”

The Lord Buddha enquired of Subhuti, saying: “What think you? Does the Lord Buddha possess the eye of truth?”[1] Subhuti assented, saying: “Honoured of the Worlds! the Lord Buddha truly possesses the eye of truth.”

The Lord Buddha enquired of Subhuti, saying: “What think you? Does the Lord Buddha possess the Buddhic eye?” Subhuti assented, saying: “Honoured of the Worlds! the Lord Buddha truly possesses the Buddhic eye.”[2]

The Lord Buddha enquired of Subhuti, saying: “What think you? Concerning the sands of the Ganges, did the Lord Buddha declare that these were grains of sand?” Subhuti assenting, said: “Honoured of the Worlds! the Lord Buddha declared that these were grains of sand.”

The Lord Buddha enquired of Subhuti, saying: “What think you? If there were as many rivers Ganges as there are grains of sand in the Ganges, and if there were as many Buddhist worlds as the grains of sand in those innumerable rivers, would these Buddhist worlds be numerous?” Subhuti replied, saying: “Honoured of the Worlds! these Buddhist worlds would be very numerous.”

The Lord Buddha, continuing, addressed Subhuti, saying: “Within these innumerable worlds, every form of sentient life, with their various mental dispositions, are entirely known to the Lord Buddha.[3] And why? Because, what the Lord Buddha referred to as their ‘various mental dispositions,’ are not in reality their ‘various mental dispositions,’ these are merely termed their ‘various mental dispositions.’ And why? Because, Subhuti, dispositions of mind, or modes of thought, whether relating to the past, the present, or the future, are alike unreal and illusory.”

[1] The Chinese _Fah-Yen_—literally, Eye of the Law.

“The second of the three great treasures is called _Dhamma_, or in
Singhalese, _Dharmma_. This word has various meanings, but is here
to be understood in the sense of Truth. It is not unfrequently
translated ‘the Law,’ but this interpretation gives an idea
contrary to the entire genius of Buddhism. The _Dharmma_ is
therefore emphatically the Truth.”—_Eastern Monachism_. Spence
Hardy.

[2] “Supernatural talents, which the founder of Buddhism,
Sakyamuni, is believed to have acquired in the night before he
became Buddha, and which every Arhat takes possession of by means
of the fourth degree of _Dhyana_ (abstract contemplation). Most
Chinese texts reckon six such talents, while the Singhalese know
only five. Sometimes, however, only five are mentioned.”—_Handbook
of Chinese Buddhism_. Eitel.

The physical eye has an ordinary local function. The divine or
spiritual eye has a universal function. The eye of wisdom is
affiliated with the Law, and attests its immutability. The eye of
truth is exegetical and synthetical. The Buddhic eye is the
instrument of salvation.—_Chinese Annotation_.

[3] “Bhagavat said, as many beings as there would be in all those
worlds, I know the manifold trains of thought of them all. And
why? Because, what was preached as the trains of thought, the
trains of thought indeed, O Subhuti, that was preached by
Tathagata as no train of thoughts, and therefore it is called the
train of thoughts. And why? Because, O Subhuti, a past thought is
not perceived, a future thought is not perceived,, and the present
thought is not perceived.”—_The Vagrakkhedika_. Max Müller.

“Gautama himself was very early regarded as omniscient, and
absolutely sinless. His perfect wisdom is declared by the ancient
epithet of Samma-Sambuddha, ‘the completely enlightened one,’
found at the commencement of every Pali text; and at the present
day in Ceylon, the usual way in which Gautama is styled is
_Sarwajnan-Wahanse_, ‘the venerable omniscient one.’ From his
perfect wisdom, according to Buddhist belief, his sinlessness
would follow as a matter of course.”—_Buddhism_. T. W. Rhys Davids.

[Chapter 19]

The Lord Buddha addressed Subhuti, saying: “What think you? If a disciple, having obtained all the treasures of this universe,[1] were to bestow these in the exercise of charity, would such a disciple consequently enjoy a considerable merit?” Subhuti assenting, said: “Honoured of the Worlds! such a disciple would consequently enjoy a very considerable merit.”[2]

The Lord Buddha thereupon addressed Subhuti, saying: “If there were any real or permanent quality in merit, the Lord Buddha would not have spoken of such merit as ‘considerable.’ It is because there is neither a tangible nor material quality in merit, that the Lord Buddha referred to the merit of that disciple as ‘considerable.’”

[1] The seven treasures—gold, silver, pearls, coral, cornelian,
glass, and crystal.

[2] “Because, what was preached as a stock of merit, a stock of
merit indeed, O Subhuti, that was preached as no stock of merit by
the Tathagata, and therefore it is called a stock of merit. If, O
Subhuti, there existed a stock of merit, Tathagata would not have
preached a stock of merit, a stock of merit indeed!”—_The
Vagrakkhedika_. Max Müller.

Within the meaning of the Buddhic Law, charity is purely a
spiritual concept; and merit consequent upon fulfilling the Law of
charity, must have a purely spiritual realisation. This is the
sense in which the Lord Buddha referred to merit as
“considerable.”—_Chinese Annotation_.

[Chapter 20]

The Lord Buddha addressed Subhuti, saying: “What think you? Can the Lord Buddha be perceived by means of his perfect material body?”[1] Subhuti replied, saying: “Honoured of the Worlds! it is improbable that the Lord Buddha can be perceived by means of his perfect material body. And why? Because, what the Lord Buddha referred to as a ‘perfect material body,’ is not in reality a ‘perfect material body,’ it is merely termed a ‘perfect material body.’”

The Lord Buddha addressed Subhuti, saying: “What think you? Can the Lord Buddha be perceived by means of any physical phenomena?”[2] Subhuti replied, saying: “Honoured of the Worlds! it is improbable that the Lord Buddha can be perceived by means of any physical phenomena. And why? Because, what the Lord Buddha referred to as ‘physical phenomena,’ are not in reality ‘physical phenomena,’ these are merely termed ‘physical phenomena.’”

[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.

If the worlds were real and permanent, they would always retain
their original forms and primordial natures, and be subject
neither to the influence of time nor the Law of change.—_Chinese
Annotation_.

“Subhuti, this characteristic of the one ‘harmonious principle,’
is a thing which cannot be spoken of in words; it is only the vain
philosophy of the world, which has grasped the idea of explaining
this.”—_Kin-Kong-King_. Beal.

This noteworthy statement seems to militate against some opinions
expressed in Europe regarding the Buddhist theory of “matter.”
According to our Chinese text, it does not appear that Sakyamuni
Buddha categorically denied the “presence” or “existence” of
matter in the universe, but endeavoured rather to indicate the
diversified and evanescent nature of its “forms” and “qualities.”
Many devout Buddhists regard even the smallest particle of dust as
containing a mysterious and elusive element—probably what we are
disposed to term “a spiritual element,” or “principle of life”—and
these are not unreasonably regarded as being altogether
inscrutable, and therefore “incomprehensible.”

[Chapter 31]

The Lord Buddha addressed Subhuti, saying: “If a disciple affirmed that the Lord Buddha enunciated a belief[1] that the mind can comprehend the idea of an entity, a being, a living being, or a personality; what think you, Subhuti, would that disciple be interpreting aright the meaning of my discourse?” Subhuti replied, saying: “Honoured of the Worlds! that disciple would not be interpreting aright the meaning of the Lord Buddha’s discourse. And why? Because, Honoured of the Worlds! discoursing upon comprehending such ideas as an entity, a being, a living being, and a personality, it was declared that these are entirely unreal and illusive, and therefore they are merely termed an entity, a being, a living being, and a personality.”

The Lord Buddha thereafter addressed Subhuti, saying:[2] “Those who aspire to the attainment of supreme spiritual wisdom ought thus to know, believe in, and interpret phenomena. They ought to eliminate from their minds every tangible evidence of every visible object. Subhuti, concerning ‘visible objects,’ the Lord Buddha declared that these are not really ‘visible objects’ they are merely termed ‘visible objects.’”

[1] “Because, O Subhuti, if a man were to say that belief in self,
belief in a being, belief in life, belief in personality, had been
preached by the Tathagata, would he be speaking truly? Subhuti
said, not indeed, Bhagavat, he would not be speaking truly. And
why? Because, what was preached by the Tathagata as a belief in
self, that was preached as no-belief, therefore it is called
belief in self.”—_The Vagrakkhedika_. Max Müller.

In these words are exemplified another profound aspect of Buddhist
doctrine. Apart from interesting questions concerning the
existence of an entity, a being, a living being, or a personality,
another problem seems to arise regarding our ability to entirely
perceive or “comprehend” those admitted abstract ideas. If we
interpret aright the Buddhist doctrine, there are variously
compounded within those abstract ideas, so many elusive spiritual
elements, that the human mind is incapable of resolving them by
any process of reasoning. In short—an entity, a being, a living
being, or a personality, represents to the Buddhist mind, much
more than it attempts to express in terms of philosophy.

[2] “Thus then, O Subhuti, are all things to be perceived, to be
looked upon, and to be believed by one who has entered upon the
path of the Bodhisattvas. And in this wise are they to be
perceived, to be looked upon, and to be believed, neither in the
idea of a thing, nor in the idea of a no-thing? And why? Because
by saying: the idea of a thing, the idea of a thing indeed, it has
been preached by the Tathagata as the no-idea of a thing.”—_The
Vagrakkhedika_. Max Müller.

“Subhuti, the persons who aspire to the perfectly enlightened
heart, ought to know accordingly that this is true with respect to
all things, and thus prevent the exhibition of any characteristics
on any point whatever. Subhuti, these very characteristics of
which we speak are after all no characteristics, but a mere
name.”—_Kin-Kong-King_. Beal.

[Chapter 32]

The Lord Buddha addressed Subhuti, saying: “If a disciple, having immeasurable spheres filled with the seven treasures,[1] bestowed these in the exercise of charity; and if a disciple, whether man or woman, having aspired to supreme spiritual wisdom, selected from this Scripture a stanza comprising four lines, then rigorously observed it, studied it, and diligently explained it to others; the cumulative merit of such a disciple would be relatively greater than the other.”

“In what attitude of mind should it be diligently explained to others?[2] Not assuming the permanency or the reality of earthly phenomena, but in the conscious blessedness of a mind at perfect rest.[3] And why? Because, the phenomena of life may be likened unto a dream, a phantasm, a bubble,[4] a shadow, the glistening dew, or lightning flash, and thus they ought to be contemplated.”

When the Lord Buddha concluded his enunciation of this Scripture,[5] the venerable Subhuti, the monks,[6] nuns, lay-brethren and sisters, all mortals, and the whole realm of spiritual beings, rejoiced exceedingly, and consecrated to its practice, they received it and departed.

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

[2] “The wise man, the preacher, who wishes to expound this Sutra,
must absolutely renounce falsehood, pride, calumny, and envy....
He is always sincere, mild, forbearing; ... he must feel affection
for all beings who are striving for enlightenment ... they are
greatly perverted in their minds, those beings who do not hear,
nor perceive ... the mystery of the Tathagata. Nevertheless will I,
who have attained this supreme, perfect knowledge, powerfully bend
to it the mind of every one (Burnouf, _par la force de mes
facultés surnaturelles_), whatever may be the position he
occupies, and bring about that he accepts, understands, and
arrives at full ripeness.”—_Saddharma-Pundarika_. H. Kern.

[3] “By contemplation are obtained those conditions through which
is eventually gained that supreme calm, undecaying, immortal
state, which is so hard to be reached.”—_Buddha-Karita_. E. B.
Cowell.

“And in what way can the disciple ‘proclaim them generally?’
Simply by relying on no conditions or distinctions whatever; thus
he will act without agitation or excitement. Wherefore the
conclusion is this—that all things which admit of definition are
as a dream, a phantom, a bubble, a shadow, as the dew and
lightning flash. They ought to be regarded thus.”—_Kin-Kong-King_.
Beal.

“And how should he explain it? As in the sky: stars, darkness, a
lamp, a phantom, dew, a bubble, a dream, a flash of lightning, and
a cloud—thus should we look upon the world (all that was
made).”—_The Vagrakkhedika_. Max Müller.