Author: buddha21_wp

XXVI.

   ‘What do you think then, O Subhûti, is the Tathâgata to be seen (known) by the possession of signs?’ Subhûti said: ‘Not indeed, O Bhagavat. So far as I know the meaning of the preaching of the Bhagavat, the Tathâgata is not to be seen (known) by the possession of signs.’ Bhagavat said: ‘Good, good, Subhûti, so it is, Subhûti; so it is, as you say; a Tathâgata is not to be seen (known) by the possession of signs. And why? Because, O Subhûti, if the Tathâgata were to be seen (known) by the possession of signs, a wheel-turning king also would be a Tathâgata[1]; therefore a Tathâgata is not to be seen (known) by the possession of signs.’ The venerable Subhûti spoke thus to the Bhagavat: ‘As I understand the meaning of the preaching of the Bhagavat, a Tathâgata is not to be seen (known) by the possession of signs.’ Then the Bhagavat at that moment preached these two Gâthâs:

They who saw me by form, and they who heard me by sound,
They engaged in false endeavours, will not see me.

A Buddha is to be seen (known) from the Law; for the Lords (Buddhas) have the Law-body;
And the nature of the Law cannot be understood, nor can it be made to be understood. 

https://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/sbe49/sbe4929.htm

XXV.

   ‘What do you think then, O Subhûti, does a Tathâgatas think in this wise: Beings have been delivered by me? You should not think so, O Subhûti. And why? Because there is no being, O Subhûti, that has been delivered by the Tathâgata. And, if there were a being, O Subhûti, that has been delivered by the Tathâgatas, then the Tathâgata would believe in self, believe in a being, believe in a living being, and believe in a person. And what is called a belief in self, O Subhûti, that is preached as no-belief by the Tathâgata. And this is learned by children and ignorant persons; and they who were preached as children and ignorant persons, O Subhûti, were preached as no-persons by the Tathâgata, and therefore they are called children and ignorant persons.’ 

https://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/sbe49/sbe4929.htm

XXII.

   ‘What do you think then, O Subhûti, is there anything which has been known by the Tathâgata in the form of the highest perfect knowledge?’ The venerable Subhûti said: ‘Not indeed, O Bhagavat, there is nothing, O Bhagavat, that has been known by the Tathâgata in the form of the highest perfect knowledge.’ Bhagavat said: ‘So it is, Subhûti, so it is. Even the smallest thing is not known or perceived there, therefore it is called the highest perfect knowledge.’ (22)

XXIII.

   ‘Also, Subhûti, all is the same there, there is no difference there, and therefore it is called the highest perfect knowledge. Free from self, free from being, 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 were preached as good things, good things indeed, O Subhûti, they were preached as no-things by the Tathâgata, and therefore they are called good things.’ 

https://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/sbe49/sbe4929.htm

XXI.

   Bhagavat said: ‘What do you think, O Subhûti, does the Tathâgata think in this wise: The Law has been taught by me?’ Subhûti said: ‘Not indeed, O Bhagavat, does the Tathâgata 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 Tathâgata, he would say what is not true; he would slander me with untruth which he has learned. And why? Because, O Subhûti, it is said the teaching of the Law, the teaching of the Law indeed. O Subhûti, there is nothing that can be perceived by the name of the teaching of the Law.’

   After this, the venerable Subhûti spoke thus to the Bhagavat: ‘Forsooth, O Bhagavat, will there be any beings in the future, in the last time, in the last moment, in the last 500 years, during the time of the decay of the good Law, who, when they have heard these very Laws, will believe?’ Bhagavat said: ‘These, O Subhûti, are neither beings nor no-beings. And why? Because, O Subhûti, those who were preached as beings, beings indeed, they were preached as no-beings by the Tathâgata, and therefore they are called beings.’

https://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/sbe49/sbe4929.htm

XX.

   ‘What do you think then, O Subhûti, is a Tathâgata to be seen (known) by the shape of his visible body?’ Subhûti said: ‘Not indeed, O Bhagavat, a Tathâgata is not to be seen (known) by the shape of his visible body. And why? Because, what was preached, O Bhagavat, as the shape of the visible body, the shape of the visible body indeed, that was preached by the Tathâgata as no-shape of the visible body, and therefore it is called the shape of the visible body.’

   Bhagavat said: ‘What do you think, O Subhûti, should a Tathâgata be seen (known) by the possession of signs?’ Subhûti said: ‘Not indeed, O Bhagavat, a Tathâgata is not to be seen (known) by the possession of signs. And why? Because, what was preached by the Tathâgata as the possession of signs, that was preached as no-possession of signs by the Tathâgata, and therefore it is called the possession of signs.’ 

https://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/sbe49/sbe4929.htm

XVIII.

   Bhagavat said: ‘What do you think, O Subhûti, has the Tathâgata the bodily eye?’ Subhûti said: ‘So it is, O Bhagavat, the Tathâgata has the bodily eye.’

   Bhagavat said: ‘What do you think, O Subhûti, has the Tathâgata the heavenly eye?’ Subhûti said: ‘So it is, O Bhagavat, the Tathâgata has the heavenly eye.’

   Bhagavat said: ‘What do you think, O Subhûti, has the Tathâgata the eye of knowledge?’ Subhûti said: ‘So it is, O Bhagavat, the Tathâgata has the eye of knowledge.’

   Bhagavat said: ‘What do you think, O Subhûti, has the Tathâgata the eye of the Law?’ Subhûti said: ‘So it is, O Bhagavat, the Tathâgata has the eye of the Law.’

   Bhagavat said: ‘What do you think, O Subhûti, has the Tathâgata the eye of Buddha?’ Subhûti said: ‘So it is, O Bhagavat, the Tathâgata has the eye of Buddha.’

   Bhagavat said: ‘What do you think, O Subhûti, as many grains of sand as there are in the great river Gangâ–were they preached by the Tathâgata as grains of sand?’ Subhûti said: ‘So it is, O Bhagavat, so it is, O Sugata, they were preached as grains of sand by the Tathâgata.’ Bhagavat said: ‘What do you think, O Subhûti, if there were as many Gangâ rivers as there are grains of sand in the great river Gangâ; and, if there were as many worlds as there are grains of sand in these, would these worlds be many?’ Subhûti said: ‘So it is, O Bhagavat, so it is, O Sugata, these worlds would be many.’ Bhagavat said: ‘As many beings as there are in all those worlds, I know the manifold trains of thought of them all. And why? Because what was preached as the train of thoughts, the train of thoughts indeed, O Subhûti, that was preached by the Tathâgata as no-train of thoughts, and therefore it is called the train of thoughts. And why? Because, O Subhûti, a past thought is not perceived, a future thought is not perceived, and the present thought is not perceived.’

https://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/sbe49/sbe4929.htm

XVII cont.

  ‘If, O Subhûti, a Bodhisattva were to say: “I shall create numbers of worlds,” he would say what is untrue. And why? Because, what were spoken of as numbers of worlds, numbers of worlds indeed, O Subhûti, these were spoken of as no-numbers by the Tathâgata, and therefore they are called numbers of worlds.

   ‘A Bodhisattva, O Subhûti, who believes that all things are without self, that all things are without self, he has faith, he is called a noble-minded Bodhisattva by the holy and fully enlightened Tathâgata.’

XVII.

   At that time the venerable Subhûti thus spoke to the Bhagavat: ‘How should a person, after having entered on the path of the Bodhisattvas, behave, how should he advance, and how should he restrain his thoughts?’ Bhagavat said: ‘He who has entered on the path of the Bodhisativas should thus frame his thought: All beings must be delivered by me in the perfect world of Nirvâna; and yet after I have thus delivered these beings, no being has been delivered. And why? Because, O Subhûti, if a Bodhisattva had any idea of beings, he could not be called a Bodhisattva, and so on[1] from the idea of a living being to the idea of a person; if he had any such idea, he could not be called a Bodhisattva. And why? Because, O Subhûti, there is no such thing (dharma) as one who has entered on the path of the Bodhisattvas.

   ‘What do you think, O Subhûti, is there anything which the Tathâgata has adopted from the Tathâgata Dîpankara with regard to the highest perfect knowledge? ‘After this, the venerable Subhûti spoke thus to the Bhagavat: ‘As far as I, O Bhagavat, understand the meaning of the preaching of the Bhagavat, there is nothing which has been adopted by the Tathâgata from the holy and fully enlightened Tathâgata Dîpankara with regard to the highest perfect knowledge.’ After this, Bhagavat thus spoke to the venerable Subhûti: ‘So it is, Subhûti, so it is. There is not, O Subhûti, anything which has been adopted by the Tathâgata from the holy and fully enlightened Tathâgata Dîpankara with regard to the highest perfect knowledge. And if, O Subhûti, anything had been adopted by the Tathâgata, the Tathâgata Dîpankara would not have prophesied of me, saying[1]: “Thou, O boy, wilt be in the future the holy and fully enlightened Tathâgata called Sâkyamuni.” Because then, O Subhûti, there is nothing that has been adopted by the holy and fully enlightened Tathâgata with regard to the highest perfect knowledge, therefore I was prophesied by the Tathâgata Dîpankara, saying: “Thou, boy, wilt be in the future the holy and fully enlightened Tathâgata called Sâkyamuni.”

   ‘And why, O Subhûti, the name of Tathâgata? It expresses true suchness. And why Tathâgata, O Subhûti? It expresses that he had no origin. And why Tathâgata, O Subhûti? It expresses the destruction of all qualities. And why Tathâgata, O Subhûti? It expresses one who had no origin whatever. And why this? Because, O Subhûti, no-origin is the highest goal.

   ‘And whosoever, O Subhûti, should say that, by the holy and fully enlightened Tathâgata, the highest perfect knowledge has been known, he would speak an untruth, and would slander me, O Subhûti, with some untruth that he has learned. And why? Because there is no such thing, O Subhûti, as has been known by the Tathâgata with regard to the highest perfect knowledge. And in that, O Subhûti, which has been known and taught by the Tathâgata, there is neither truth nor falsehood. Thetefore the Tathâgata preaches: “All things are Buddha-things.” And why? Because what was preached by the Tathâgata, O Subhûti, as all things, that was preached as no-things; and therefore all things are called Buddha-things.

   ‘Now, O Subhûti, a man might have a body and a large body.’ The venerable Subhûti said: That man who was spoken of by the Tathâgata as a man with a body, with a large body, he, O Bhagavat, was spoken of by the Tathâgata as without a body, and therefore he is called a man with a body and with a large body.’

[1. This prophecy is supposed to have been addressed by Dîpankara to Sâkyamuni, before he had become a Buddha.]

https://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/sbe49/sbe4929.htm

Section XIV (Selected Portion)

  ‘And, O Subhûti, the Pâramitâ or the highest perfection of endurance (kshânti) belonging to a Tathâgata, that also is no-Pâramitâ. And why? Because, O Subhûti, at the time when the king of Kalinga[1] cut my flesh from every limb, I had no idea of a self, of a being, of a living being, or of a person; I had neither an idea nor no-idea. And why? Because, O Subhûti, if I at that time had had an idea of a self, I should also have had an idea of malevolence. If I had had an idea of a being, or of a living being, or of a person, I should also have had an idea of malevolence. And why? Because, O Subhûti, I remember the past 500 births, when I was the Rishi Kshântivâdin (preacher of endurance). At that time also, I had no idea of a self, of a being, of a living being, of a person. Therefore then, O Subhûti, a noble-minded Bodhisattva, after putting aside all ideas, should raise his mind to the highest perfect knowledge. He should frame his mind so as not to believe (depend) in form, sound, smell, taste, or anything that can be touched, in something (dharma), in nothing or anything. And why? Because what is believed is not believed (not to be depended on). Therefore the Tathâgata preaches: “A gift should not be given by a Bodhisattva[1] who believes in anything, it should not be given by one who believes in form, sound, smell, taste, or anything that can be touched.”

   ‘And again, O Subhûti, a Bodhisattva should in such wise give his gift for the benefit of all beings. And why? Because, O Subhûti, the idea of a being is no-idea. And those who are thus spoken of by the Tathâgata as all beings are indeed no-beings. And why? Because, O Subhûti, a Tathâgata says what is real, says what is true, says the things as they are; a Tathâgata does not speak untruth.

   ‘But again, O Subhûti, whatever doctrine has been perceived, taught, and meditated on by a Tathâgata, in it there is neither truth nor falsehood. And as a man who has entered the darkness would not see anything, thus a Bodhisattva is to be considered who is immersed in objects, and who being immersed in objects gives a gift. But as a man who has eyes would, when the night becomes light, and the sun has risen, see many things, thus a Bodhisattva is to be considered who is not immersed in objects, and who not being immersed in objects gives a gift.

   ‘And again, O Subhûti, if any sons or daughters of good families will learn this treatise of the Law, will remember, recite, and understand it, and fully explain it to others, they, O Subhûti, are known by the Tathâgata through his Buddha-knowledge, they are seen, O Subhûti, by the Tathâgata through his Buddha-eye. All these beings, O Subhûti, will produce and hold fast an immeasurable and innumerable stock of merit.’ 

https://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/sbe49/sbe4929.htm

After these words, the venerable Subhûti spoke thus to Bhagavat: ‘O Bhagavat, how is this treatise of the Law called, and how can I learn it?’ After this, Bhagavat spoke thus to the venerable Subhûti: ‘This treatise of the Law, O Subhûti, is called the Pragñâ-pâramitâ (Transcendent wisdom), and you should learn it by that name. And why? Because, O Subhûti, what was preached by the Tathâgata as the Pragñâ-pâramitâ, that was preached by the Tathâgata as no-Pâramitâ. Therefore it is called the Pragñâ-pâramitâ.

Bhagavat said: ‘What do you think, O Subhûti, is a holy and fully enlightened Tathâgata to be seen (known) by the thirty-two signs of a hero?’ Subhûti said: ‘No indeed, O Bhagavat; a holy and fully enlightened Tathâgata is not to be seen (known) by the thirty-two signs of a hero. And why? Because what was preached by the Tathâgata as the thirty-two signs of a hero, that was preached by the Tathâgata as no-signs. Therefore they are called the thirty-two signs of a hero.’

   Bhagavat said: ‘If, O Subhûti, a woman or man should day by day sacrifice his life (selfhood[1]) as many times as there are grains of sand in the river Gangâ, and if he should thus sacrifice his life for as many kalpas as there are grains of sand in the river Gangâ, and if another man, after taking from this treatise of the Law one Gâthâ of four lines only, should fully teach others and explain it, he indeed would on the strength of this produce a larger stock of merit, immeasurable and innumerable.’ 

[1. Âtmabhâva seems to refer here to the living body, not to the spiritual Âtman, which, according to Buddha, can be got rid of by knowledge only. Buddha himself sacrificed his life again and again, and a willingness to die would probably be accepted for the deed.]

https://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/sbe49/sbe4929.htm