The last two weeks we've finished the first 14 chapters and of course there are 32 and today we're going to go through sort of the core chapters, some of the longer chapters in the middle of the sutra and there's a number of people who have expressed an interest in having a couple of additional classes the following two Saturdays and if there's enough people for that I'd be happy to do that and then this week if we get up to say 18 or 19 and the following two weeks we could finish the whole sutra. Anyway, I'll leave that all up to you and I'll be happy to go over it all with you. It's a very dense sutra as we've been discovering so far. I've sort of just been hitting the highlights of what's in here. Imagine what some of the commentaries I've come across have about this sutra.

[01:01]

Of course, different monks have different favorite sutras. There was one monk once who lectured every day for six years on the title of the Lotus Sutra. And that was the subject every day, just the title. Well, he would like a couple, maybe six months for one of the words and then another six months for the next word. And so some of these commentaries can be sort of like they almost use the sutra as a platform or as a springboard into the Buddha land. And so this sutra is very good for that. You can almost pick any chapter or any part of a chapter and spend a lot of time on it. So today we'll go over these core chapters that sort of summarize a lot of what we've been talking about. I'll just get into it and then maybe I'll remember what we did last week or what I said last week.

[02:11]

This is chapter 15, and Subuddhi has just had this emotional experience where he's finally understood, or thinks he's understood this teaching, or at least he's felt the impact, the emotional impact of this teaching. And the Buddha has sort of summarized some of the teaching for him. And he says, ìFurthermore, Sabuddhi, if a man or woman renounce their self-existenceÖî Of course, heís been talking about this body of merit again. At the end of Chapter 14, he ended the chapter talking about the infinite body of merit. that people who practice this teaching acquire and of course again this concept of the body of merit is probably the single most important concept to understand in this sutra. It's sort of the bodhisattva's version of the buddha's reward body viewed from the point of view of a bodhisattva it's the body of merit viewed from a buddha's point of view it's the

[03:20]

Anyway, furthermore, Sabuddhi, if a man or woman renounced their self-existence during the morning, as many times as there are grains of sand in the Ganges, and likewise renounce their self-existence during midday, as many times as there are grains of sand in the Ganges. Of course, this is a traditional Hindu practice as well, renouncing one's self-existence. So it doesn't mean necessarily having to die, but it's sort of the the Hindus also recapitulate in their renunciations, they're recapitulating this renunciation of Purusha. Purusha of course is this mythic figure who created the world out of his body and also the human race by dismembering himself and so people in ancient India would repeat or imitate this renunciation And if you could do this as many times as there are grains of sand in the Ganges in the morning and the midday and as many times and renounce their self-existence during the afternoon as many times as there are grains of sand in the Ganges and renounce their self-existence in this manner for many hundreds and thousands of millions and trillions of Kelpas.

[04:41]

And someone heard this Dharma teaching and did not reject it. Kalpas is a concept that has become very well known in the West and the Buddhists have different ways of looking at it, but generally they talk about minor Kalpas and infinite Kalpas and great Kalpas. And if you took a city The way the Buddhists describe it is this, well, if you took a city, well, first of all, they say human beings, our lives lengthen as a world gets older, and then they begin shortening. In short, there's this cycle of our lifespan, and then our lives begin at 10, when, of course, when we can become fertile, and then we can recreate ourselves, and every hundred years, We add a year to our life cycle until we get to be 84,000 years old as our average lifespan and then once that happens, then you go back down.

[05:53]

hundred years, you took a, there's this analogy where you have a city a hundred miles square and if you took out a grain of sand, a grain of sand out of that city every hundred years, well that would be the length of what's called a minor kelpa where people go from zero or from ten to eighty-four thousand and then back again and you do this forty times. Forty of these minor kalpas becomes a great kalpa and then four of these becomes an infinite kalpa and then four of these infinite kalpas becomes a great kalpa and of course we're living at the end of the fourth kalpa. of the fourth infinite Kalpa. The Buddha met Dipamkara at the end of the second infinite Kalpa. Asamkhya is the word it means incalculably long and he was enlightened at the beginning of the third Kalpa. Anyway we're into the fourth Kalpa right now and if you renounce your existence for trillions of Kalpas and you heard someone heard something and someone heard this Dharma teaching

[07:09]

So simply did not reject it, not necessarily practice it or anything, but if you simply did not reject it, the body of merit produced as a result would be immeasurably, infinitely greater. So this teaching creates a body of merit far greater than that from self-renunciation, no matter how great your self-renunciation. how much more so if they wrote it down this is an interesting word here because it's the only time in the sutra the buddha mentions writing it down course one doesn't know whether this crept into the text rather late. The writing actually did exist during the Buddha's day but it was generally restricted to merchants and governments, that is government records and merchant accounts and any spiritual teaching was considered to be profaned if it was written down. All teachings had to be oral or How much more so if they wrote it down, understood it, memorized it, recited it, mastered it, and explained it in detail to others.

[08:20]

In short, the Buddha says, instead of offering your own self-existence, how much greater body of merit will you acquire if you offer this teaching? Furthermore, Subuddhi, inconceivable and incomparable is this Dharma teaching, that is this offering. And that's why you gain this incredible body of merit. this dharma teaching spoken by the Tathagata subhuti for the benefit of those beings who set forth on the foremost of paths and of course this harkens back to the beginning of the sutra where subhuti asked about some teachings for people who are setting forth on the bodhisattva path So these are for the benefit of those beings who set forth on the foremost of paths, for the benefit of those beings who set forth on the best of paths. For if someone understands, memorizes, recites, and masters this teaching, this Dharma teaching, and explains it in detail to others, the Tathagata will know them, subhuti, by means of this Buddha knowledge. And here's, he said this several times already, and he keeps saying it again.

[09:23]

Every time he starts talking about this incredible body of merit one acquires, He says, I will know that person, that bodhisattva, and the Tathagata will see them, subhuti, by means of his buddha vision. The Tathagata will be aware of them. For all such beings produce a body of merit that has no limits. a body of merit that is inconceivable, incomparable, immeasurable, and boundless. And of course, why is it, why is he able to see them? And he says, finally tells us here in the next sentence, for all such beings as these, Subuddhi, will likewise wear enlightenment upon their shoulders. This is probably the clearest statement we have in the sutra that this body of merit is the Buddha's sambhogakaya, the Buddha's reward body, because enlightenment the experience the realization of enlightenment is another name for the reward body of the buddha and that's why the buddha is able to know them and see them and be aware of them because they all share the same body the same body of enlightenment and how so subhuti this dharma teaching cannot be heard by beings of lesser aspiration not by those who

[10:38]

nor by those who mistakenly perceive a being, who mistakenly perceive a life, or who mistakenly perceive a soul. For beings who lack the Bodhisattva's vow cannot hear, understand, memorize, recite, or master this Dharma teaching." By saying this, the Buddha makes it really clear that he could sell anything. A used car that probably didn't work. He just says here that if you lack... Beings who lack the Bodhisattva's vow can't hear this teaching. But we do hear this teaching. Therefore... we've already made the bodhisattva vow so in this statement right here the buddha is basically saying and he says at the beginning of this the dharma teaching this dharma teaching cannot be heard by people who mistakenly perceive the self and so forth so just by hearing this teaching the buddha says that only proves that you already understand it and that you are already a bodhisattva that you

[11:43]

have already made the vow to liberate all beings and that you have no conception of a self that you're attached to and being life and soul and so forth. In short, this is a great statement of, you might say, encouragement the Buddha is making to subhuti. The fact that you just hear this teaching is proof that you have practiced in a way that you are ready to put this teaching into practice now. Now that you're ready to to master this teaching and then explain it to others. So he says, moreover, Sibhuti, wherever this sutra is explained, that place shall be honored, whether in the realm of devas, humans, or asuras, that place will be honored with prostrations and circumambulations, that place shall be like a stupa. And the reason he says this is because a stupa contains the relics of the Buddha's body. And in fact, the stupa represents the Buddha's body. The stupa is a symbol for the Dharmakaya.

[12:46]

And this teaching is the Dharmakaya, the body of the Buddha. And whereas the enlightenment, this robe of enlightenment that you wear by practicing this teaching is the reward body, the stupa here at the end of this chapter represents this this um the the dharmakaya in the uh in the lotus sutra this entire paragraph the last two paragraphs are quoted almost word for word in the lotus sutra in chapter 10 um in chapter 10 of the lotus sutra the buddha says um not only will the relics of the buddha be inside the stupa the tathagata's entire body So it makes it very clear, much clearer in the Lotus Sutra that what he's talking about here by stupa is that stupa is a metaphor for the Dharmakaya, the complete body of the Buddha. Okay, that's chapter 15.

[13:49]

I'm just going to, and again, like in previous occasions, I'll just keep reading, but anytime something occurs to you that needs further clarification or if just some idea comes just raise your hand we can talk about anything. Nevertheless, Sabuddhi, as he begins chapter 16, the good son or daughter who understands, memorizes, recites and masters such a sutra as this and contemplates it thoroughly and explains it in detail to others will suffer their contempt. So even though you've made this bodhisattva vow you should not expect that Because in explaining this sutra to others, you are bound to suffer the contempt of others. Their utter contempt, because who is possibly going to understand such a teaching as this? And how could this be? Sabuddhi, the bad karma created by these beings in their past lives should result in an unfortunate rebirth.

[14:52]

But now by suffering such contempt, they put an end to the bad karma of their past lives and attained the enlightenment of Buddhas. This must have been perceived as an incredibly radical teaching at the time. It became widely disseminated. The idea that you could get rid of karma is a radical teaching that only occurs in the later teaching of the Mahayana. the Hinayana path and of course in chapter 9 we went over the pinnacle of the Hinayana path are these last four stages where you become a srota-apana, a sacred agamen, an anagamen and an arhan where you get rid of your karma gradually but even those people have to go like the person who finds the river the srota-apana still has seven more lifetimes of karma that he has to work out. The Hinayana path does not admit the possibility of getting rid of karma. You have to suffer all your karma, one life at a time.

[15:54]

But the Buddha says, if you suffer on behalf of this teaching, the bad karma you've created that should result in an unfortunate rebirth will now be brought to an end. Yes? We're saying that if the person explaining in the past lives, that suffering eliminates the karma of those beings who are in contempt for... No, you get rid of your own karma. Oh, it gets rid of your own karma? Your own karma. No, so wait a minute. It's a... Yeah, you... These beings... They'll suffer their contempt. Teachers. Okay. Teachers suffer the contempt. The teachers suffer the contempt. Right. Therefore, that gets rid of the contempt. Right, by suffering this contempt. So, by suffering... Yeah, but the bad karma created by these beings in their past lives should result in an unfortunate rebirth for them.

[16:55]

For them? Yes. Yes, exactly, for them. But now. But now, by suffering on behalf of this teaching, by suffering on behalf of the teaching, you're only going to suffer on behalf of the teaching if you really understand the teaching. Otherwise, you're not going to do it. In the last sentence, the they, who does that refer to? the people who are teaching this, the beings who are the Bodhisattvas, the good son or daughter. Now the other question I have is how does this square with the previous paragraph which says, you know, if you're... what about these beings that are generating all this contempt, they're actually hearing this sutra, so they must be Bodhisattvas. No, no they don't. Who says they don't hear it? Well, because if they understood it they would have made that ... the Buddha says they would have made the Bodhisattva's vow, they don't really hear it. So what does it mean to hear it? Oh, well that's a good question but it means to understand it obviously too. Yeah, it means to ... well again, I was talking to Ross earlier

[17:59]

today and one of the things that we tend to forget is the importance of oral teaching in the past. We take everything as written and if it's not in writing then it doesn't have any legal validity and therefore it's not a real teaching, but it was just the opposite in the past. Only oral teachings were real teachings and thus to hear a teaching and to keep it in your head, to be able to hear a teaching meant to be able to hold on to it. It's like in a way you understand the words. Yeah. I hear what you're saying. We say that in our own idiom. We say, I hear what you're saying, but I'm not going to do that. That means I understand what you're saying. But I feel contempt for you. Exactly. Right. Exactly. Yeah. So that is a good question, but I think that we can assume that the hearing here does reflect a deeper awareness of the teaching. And these other people hear it and they reject it.

[19:00]

they reject the teaching upon hearing, it just doesn't go in. It occurred to me that, well he lumps all these things together here, understand, memorize, it's kind of like all together, all these, it's a ball of things together, they all seem to go together, but it occurred to me that in an oral tradition you don't And that has an effect, although you can't exactly say what that might be. And it occurred to me that, you know, you teach something that can't be taught, and if the Buddha says, well, I have never taught anything in any way, still something is conveyed. Something is conveyed that's not the written. Yes, that's true.

[20:27]

Uh-huh. Well, the sutra began with the Buddha going to town and sort of providing the example of his daily life as the ultimate teaching. And the whole sutra stems from that, just that example of seeing the teaching in action, so to speak. And so hearing is just one way of transmitting knowledge. You can transmit it just through your own example. But the key, the Buddhist stresses explaining this to others, though, because this is where a bodhisattva differs from the arhan, is this idea of saving all beings, liberating all beings, which means, obviously, beings in the future.

[21:36]

So bodhisattvas can't enter nirvana, like an arhan can enter nirvana. A bodhisattva cannot. Because there is something besides just sitting. Yeah, the Buddhists believe in auras and manifestation of bodies bigger than our physical body. And that's what this body of merit is all about, too. It's a projection, so to speak, over space and time. Normally, we think of our, well, that's what good karma is. But the body of merit the Buddha's talking about is a projection beyond space and time. because it's not limited by space or time, whereas our good karma is. So that's why he's always talking about these two bodies of merit, one which is basically just good karma, which is generated by material charity, and then there's one generated by spiritual charity, which is giving this teaching to others, explaining this teaching to others, transmitting this teaching to others, because this teaching is the Dharma body.

[22:45]

And that's why it just goes over and over in this sutra, this theme, and the Buddha feels necessary to repeat it over and over. But here we suffer on behalf of the teaching. Of course, you suffer on behalf of the teaching because you, by suffering on behalf of the teaching, you see suffering in light of the teaching. And this is why you're able to suffer on behalf of the teaching, because suffering now You wouldn't suffer if you didn't understand the teaching to some extent. You have to believe it was worth suffering for. And by having that sort of attitude towards it, you understand, you apply the teaching to the actual suffering. And therefore, you see the emptiness of that suffering, and it is in this way that the bad karma of your past lives is wiped out. Because karma is nothing but delusion. whether it's good or bad and it's suffering on behalf of this teaching sort of speeds up the process whereby you view karma as being by nature empty and so forth.

[23:58]

So that's why in a way this is a radical teaching and in a way it's not a radical teaching at all but it appears to be. So Subuddhi, I recall, so after saying that you're going to get rid of all this bad karma, the Buddha says, I recall in the past during countless infinite, these are these infinite kalpas again, I calculated it in my notes and I came up with a great kalpa. There's four infinite kalpas make up a great kalpa and I came up with 1.34 billion years for a great kalpa. So I just passed that note on. 1.34 billion years, give or take a little bit. So I recall during these countless infinite kalpas, and the Buddha again practiced for two infinite kalpas, it was during the end of that second infinite kalpa that he met Dipankara Tathagata, the Arhat, the fully enlightened one, and during that time I pleased

[25:01]

84,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, In the final period, in the final 500 years of the Dharma ending age, the body of merit of the person who understands, memorizes, recites, and masters such a sutra as this, and explains in detail to others, will exceed my former body of merit, not by a hundredfold, or a thousandfold, or a hundred thousandfold, or a millionfold, or a hundred millionfold, or a thousand millionfold, or a hundred thousand millionfold, but by an amount that cannot be measured, calculated, illustrated, characterized, or even imagined. Sabuddhi, if I was to describe this good son or daughter's body of merit, the full extent of the body of merit this good son or daughter would thereby produce and obtain, it would bewilder beings or disturb their minds. Of course, when the Buddha was alive there were four things that he said cannot be imagined.

[26:09]

He says you cannot fully comprehend or imagine the state of meditation. It's something like you have to taste yourself. Also, you cannot fully know the effects of karma. They're so infinite. Also, you cannot know the origin of the universe. And the fourth thing is you cannot fully know the nature of the body of merit. or the reward body of the Buddha. Those are the four things that you cannot know. You have to experience yourself. And so, therefore, when he's talking about this body of merit, again, he's just talking about the reward body of the Buddha. Yes? I just want to mention what nobody's mentioned, which is that you are following the procedure for generating all this merit for yourself. Well, I think when we finally get done with this, then we should have a little merit dedication ceremony. Ah, it will protect it forever, right? Otherwise, one could destroy merit by getting angry and stuff.

[27:11]

Especially when my car breaks down. But if you transfer it, then it's kind of sealed. It cannot be destroyed. Yes, that's true, yeah. So I think when we finally finish this, we should dedicate the merit to all other beings and to their liberation. And that generates more, doesn't it? that should if it works the way it's supposed to. Yes? I think to get maximum bang for our buck, we should keep contempt upon him. I got rid of my bad karma last week, actually. I actually do every week with my kids. They make sure that I'm free of bad karma. But thank you for the thought. But anyway, the last line here of this, �Furthermore, Sabuddhi, inconceivable and incomparable is this Dharma teaching spoken by the Tathagata, and inconceivable is the result you should expect.� So the Buddha says, this is sort of like if you plant a melon, you get a melon.

[28:19]

If you plant an inconceivable teaching, you get an inconceivable fruit. And that's why this body of merit is so inconceivable and that every time he talks about it, if it's the body of merit that arises from this teaching rather than material charity, it is always inconceivable because it's this body that is actually the body of enlightenment. And I thought I'd just add that on there. I'll go into 17 now. 17 is the longest chapter in the, in the sutra. Again, the Venerable Subuddhi asked, and many commentators like, yes, uh-huh? I just wanted to ask a question before you went on. Just a general question about all these repetitions and exaggerated, repeating the numbers, higher and higher numbers. Why not say it's a really big number, or say these things once?

[29:31]

Well, I guess they could say them once, but I guess repetition, again, because it's an oral teaching, repetition is one of the hallmarks of an oral teaching, that you repeat it over and over, because people are only going to get the teaching orally, it's not written down. I think that's why he goes over these things over and over. Also, I just think he wants to break through any cognitive barriers that Subuddhi or his audience has. He wants to tell them, whatever you've been thinking, whatever you think is a big number or a big size or a big act of charity, well, let's expand that beyond the limits of your imagination, or at least to the limits of your imagination, and then let's think of what's beyond that. Yes? The role, you just brought the word up, charity again, but the role of forbearance in teaching because there's always a point where one can forbear and not speak up and avoid contempt and then to go ahead and speak up and to share teaching.

[30:46]

I'm curious if you have anything to say about the role of forbearance. Well, they're the same. They're the flip sides of each other. Every act of charity requires an act of forbearance. You're giving up something. You have to be able to bear doing without that, whether it's money or your life. And also, it's the same with forbearance. You don't forbear anything unless you're giving something. Like when he talks about this king cutting up his body and bearing that pain or that agony. He's actually giving away his body like Parusha did. So forbearance also requires an act of charity to make it forbearance. Otherwise you're not forbearing anything. So in a way that being willing to suffer the contempt is in a way an act of forbearance? Yes, exactly. Yeah. And you wouldn't encounter that unless you were giving something that people were rejecting and not accepting.

[31:47]

And the Buddha sort of just tosses that in. It's the only time in the sutra that he actually mentions that. Well, what would happen if people didn't accept the teaching? He says, well, that's just going to speed your own understanding of the teaching by clearing away all the obstructions of bad karma. because otherwise you couldn't possibly suffer that contempt. You would give up. Okay, well, maybe, yeah, you have to go back to this over and over and over. Sometimes I think these things are very clear and I read them the next day and I'm not at all clear either. But if we can, does anybody have any other question? But anyway, I think, in summary, I think the Buddha is just trying to blow Subuddhi's mind with all these big numbers and all this repetition. Sometimes repetition is like that too. It becomes a drone and a drone and it gets you to a point where your awareness becomes like a shell and then the slightest thing breaks through it.

[32:55]

Well, that's another good point. All these Prajnaparamita texts were supposedly in verse form first, and the Diamond Sutra has another title. It's called the Perfection of Wisdom in 300 Lines. Supposedly it was in a 300-line verse form. So when it's orally transmitted, it's not just like prose, it's more like a chant and and it helps you too. Right, and even if it's not a mantra, it has a poetic force. Poetry has this hidden force we don't normally think about, in the quality of rhyme and so forth, where it can just, by hearing this repetition of rhyme and the rhythm of language, sometimes you can understand the truth more from poetry than you can from prose. are kind of brother and sister in a way.

[34:14]

And it's possible that he was chanted in some way too. Yeah, it would have to be if it had this old title that nobody has ever found the verse version or nobody knows anything about it except it has this title that sort of stuck with it over the years. And so it apparently was chanted at some point. and again chanting it has its own hidden secret power and again these words these repetitions that probably were meant partly in with that in mind so the buddha said oh again the venerable sabuddhi asked the buddha oh before i started this i was going to say many commentators say this marks the beginning of the second half of the sutra and that the first part is about the practice of prajna and the second half of the sutra is about upaya, skillful means.

[35:15]

And I would agree with those commentators, having worked on this sutra, this is really the beginning of a new phase in the sutra, the second half of the sutra. And we can see a good sign of this. Again, the Venerable Subuddhi asks the Buddha, Bhagavan, if someone sets forth on the Bodhisattva path, how should they dwell? How should they practice and how should they control their thoughts? These are the exact same questions Subuddhi asked in Chapter 2. So again, in the first half of the sutra, the Buddha addressed the subject of prajna, of wisdom, the perfection of wisdom. And now, Subuddhi realizes that, but still wants to go beyond the perfection of wisdom, because wisdom without skillful means is sort of sterile. So now he asks these questions again, so that the Buddha can talk about how to practice these inconceivable teachings. And the Buddha said, Sabuddhi, someone who sets forth on the Bodhisattva path should give rise to the thought, which is, of course, what he said in the second, third chapter, in the realm of complete nirvana, I shall liberate all beings.

[36:28]

And while I thus liberate beings, not a single being is liberated. And this is so far the same. And why is this? Sabuddhi, a Bodhisattva who forms the idea of a being cannot be called a Bodhisattva. Neither can someone who forms the idea of a life or even the idea of a soul be called a bodhisattva. And why not, Subuddhi? There is no such dharma as setting forth on the bodhisattva path. Well, this last line is where the sutra does not repeat what goes before. The Buddha has never said this before. subhuti there is no such thing no such dharma is setting forth on the bodhisattva path again there's no practice so this is how the buddha teaches apaya or skillful means he addresses he knows what subhuti is thinking and he knows subhuti is interested in skillful means and so he says there's no such thing as skillful means there's no such dharma as the path there is no such dharma as the practice And so, having said this, he now wants to sort of test Subuddhi on this.

[37:34]

What do you think, Subuddhi, when the Tathagata was with Dipamkhara Tathagata, did he realize any such Dharma as unexcelled perfect enlightenment? And again, it was when the Buddha in a previous life as Sumedha met Dipamkhara that he realized the forbearance of birthlessness. It's called, um, the eighth stage of the Bodhisattva path. which the Buddha here equates with enlightenment. To realize the eighth stage of the Bodhisattva path, to realize that no dharma arises, as far as the Buddha is concerned here, he's treating that as equivalent to the tenth stage of the path, or enlightenment. So when I met Dipamkara, did I realize any dharma, such as enlightenment? And to this, the venerable Sabuddhi answered, Bhagavan, as I understand the meaning of what the Tathagata has taught, when the Tathagata was with Dipamkhara Tathagata, the Arhan, the fully enlightened one, he did not realize any such dharma as unexcelled perfect enlightenment.

[38:42]

Of course, he's saying that there's no, since there's no setting forth on the Bodhisattva path, there's no seed. Thus, there can also not be any fruit. So there cannot be any realization of perfect enlightenment, no setting forth on the path, no realization of enlightenment, no seed, no fruit. And to this, the Buddha replied, so it is, Subuddhi. So finally, for the first time, Subuddhi says something that the Buddha approves of. And to this, the Buddha replied, so it is, Subuddhi, so it is. When the Tathagata was with Dipankara, Tathagata, the Arhant, the fully enlightened one, he did not realize any such dharma as unexcelled perfect enlightenment. Subuddhi, if the Tathagata had realized any dharma, Dipamkhara Tathagata would not have prophesied, young man in the future you shall become the Tathagata, the Arhan, the fully enlightened one named Shakyamuni. Sabuddhi was because the Tathagata, the Arhat, the fully enlightened one did not realize any such Dharma as unexcelled perfect enlightenment that Dipamkara Tathagata prophesied.

[39:53]

Young man in the future you shall become the Tathagata, the Arhat, the fully enlightened one named Shakyamuni. And of course the reason he didn't realize anything is because it was at this stage, at the eighth stage when he met Dipamkara that he realized the birthlessness of all Dharmas. So this eighth stage is sort of necessary for enlightenment. You have to, what the Buddha is saying between the lines here, he is saying that it's because I realized that there are no dharmas that come into existence that I was properly prepared to realize enlightenment. to realize the dharma of enlightenment, because no dharmas can come into existence, including, of course, enlightenment. That's just another dharma. And so he's saying, that's why I didn't realize any dharma, such as any dharma as enlightenment, because I was finally freed of enlightenment, freed of all dharmas. And that's why he talks in this next little section. He says, and why?

[40:55]

Why was that? Tathagata subhuti. Tathagata is another name for what is truly real. Tathagata subhuti is another name for the dharma with no beginning. Tathagata subhuti is another name for the end of dharmas. Tathagata subhuti is another name for what never begins. So this is, again, the realization of no beginning. That no dharmas come into existence is what Sumedha realized when he was with Dipamkhara. or the Buddha in a previous lifetime, when he was with Dipamkhara, he realized that no dharmas ever begin, and this is the essence. He realized the dharma body as well, the tathagata, the true nature of suchness. And that's why the Buddha pauses to say, to talk about, try to define tathagata here, because this is actually what the Buddha realized. He realized tathagata. And of course, you can't realize Tathagata because the Tathagata is a name for that which has no beginning.

[42:00]

So if it has no beginning, you can never realize it. And why... No beginning, subhuti, is the highest truth. Subhuti, if anyone should claim the Tathagata, the Arhan, the fully enlightened one realized unexcelled perfect enlightenment, their claim would be untrue. Subhuti, they would be making a false statement about me. And why, subhuti, the Tathagata did not realize any such dharma as unexcelled perfect enlightenment. So there, he's dealt with the idea that in pursuing skillful means, one has to keep in mind that there's no path to enlightenment and there's no enlightenment. As such, no dharma has come into existence. Yes? I've been thinking about this actually. things are empty because of their conditioned co-production, and they don't have a self-existence.

[43:24]

Then, since that, once you're there, the next step is, well, they're not coming into existence anyway. And so there's no birth. And there's no coming or going. And in a sense, it puts aside that problem, because you can make that leap. There you are, and nothing's being realized or born. Right. Ross was asking me earlier today about my own entrance into the Buddhist path and I told him it was through the study of statistics and finite mathematics and logic. That's what I was studying when I was a graduate student. And it was upon realizing, because in the study of science, all that one wants to do is to write a formula accounting for the movement of variables, the relationship between variables. And in its simplest form, you deal with, say, the variables x and y. And when you write a perfect formula,

[44:26]

then you create what's called a perfect correlation, a correlation of one between x and y. That is, for any movement along the x-axis, your formula accounts for a movement along the y-axis. And it was my realization of that, after a year of studying statistics, that if you actually do write that perfect formula and actually can write a formula that has a correlation of one, all you've done is prove to yourself that you were mistaken to identify X and Y as separate, that there is no difference and that's just, you began with two delusions and you've just proved to yourself the nature of truth, the nature of emptiness. And so it was this that led me to study Buddhism and realize that there's a much more poetic way of of approaching the same thing and of course a way of applying it to your life too as well as just through science. But yeah, it's true, the awareness of birthlessness means that these things that we thought were empty weren't there in the first place to become empty.

[45:30]

They didn't need to be empty, but we're stuck with our delusions and have to work our way through them, unless we suffer contempt, of course. If we suffer enough contempt, then we get sort of a shortcut to this. Let me go through the rest of this chapter and then we can take a pause here too. Where are we? Oh yes, furthermore Subuddhi, the Dharma realized or taught by the Tathagata is neither true nor false because of this reason. It can't be true because it never began. It can't be false because, again, there's nothing there to be false. Thus the Tathagata says all dharmas are Buddha dharmas. And again, this is why the second half of this whole sutra is about Buddha dharmas, about dharmas that we know don't exist, that have never come into existence, but we put them to use. They're used in the liberation of all beings.

[46:31]

And how so? All dharmas, subhuti, are said by the Tathagata to be no dharmas. Thus are all dharmas called Buddha dharmas. Okay, now he's got that sort of taken care of, he comes back to this renunciation of the body again, of the self. Subhuti, it's like this cosmic being, again the cosmic being in the Sanskrit word here is purusha, it's like purusha. this being who began the universe by dismembering his body. It's like this cosmic being with a great and perfect body. Venerable Subuddhi said, Bhagavan, this cosmic being whom the Tathagata, and that's the Buddha saying, the Tathagata is sort of, think of this big, Purusha. And what do you think about that, Usain? So this big Purusha whom the Tathagata says has this great and perfect body, Bhagavan the Tathagata says has no body, thus is it called a great and perfect body. So Subuddhi understands that the self does not exist and therefore you can't renounce it. The Buddha said, so it is, if a Bodhisattva says, I shall liberate other beings, he is not called a Bodhisattva.

[47:40]

So you can't renounce yourself. You can't liberate anybody. and why not subuddhi if is there any such dharma as a bodhisattva you can't liberate anybody because there's nobody to to do the liberation the venerable subuddhi replied no indeed bhagavan there's no such dharma as a bodhisattva and also the beings as well the buddha said it being subuddhi beings are said by the tathagata to be no beans thus are they called beans and and thus does the tathagata say all dharmas have no self all dharmas have no life no individuality and no If a bodhisattva should thus claim, ìI shall bring about the transformation of a world,î this is also what a bodhisattva does. You renounce yourself, save beings, and you transform the world out of the self that youíve sacrificed, out of which youíve created a new universe, which youíve transformed. should thus claim I shall bring about the transformation of a world, his claim would be untrue.

[48:43]

And how so? The transformation of a world, Sabuddhi, the transformation of a world is said by the Tathagata to be no transformation, thus is it called the transformation of a world. So the Buddha just keeps applying the same old dialectic and repeats a lot of the things he did in the first part, but now he's focusing on skillful means again. Sabuddhi, when a Bodhisattva realizes dharmas have no self, as a dharma that has no self. The Tathagata, the Arahant, the fully enlightened one, pronounces that person a fearless bodhisattva. So the end of the path is no beginning. and no beginning is the end. When dharmas have no self, when you can perceive that dharmas have no self, and see that that dharma has no self, then you're a bodhisattva. Then you're ready to put this teaching to use. This is what he means by Buddha dharmas. Should we take a pause right here? Are there any questions about this right now, or should we take a break?

[49:45]

Okay. of dharmas, another name for the end of dharmas, and so I was thinking, well what about this phrase, dharma ending age? Could it be, we always think of that as being the age when the teaching is lost. Yes, huh? Well maybe it's not, maybe it's the age when everybody understands that there are no dharmas, the whole world. Well, that's possible. Well, Lao Tzu actually tried to deal with the same thing, the same question, and his solution was that it's not the Dharma that disappears, it's that people's ability to understand it is what wanes. It probably is, but why not? Because if you're going to liberate all beings there must be some point at which all beings must be liberated and therefore perhaps the Dharmandic Age is the age at which people end their attachment to dharmas, I suppose.

[50:58]

But yeah, I just, I never really, I never, I haven't really thought, I actually, I never thought about, that's why I'm reacting the way I am, I haven't ever thought about that perspective before. The attachment ending age. That's this one? The one you're talking about, the dharma ending age, would be the attachment ending age. Well, because the dharma ending age is the age at which there's nothing left to be attached to. OK, well, let's take a break. Time out. Yeah, time out. Yes, yeah, yeah, exactly. Ross, Dolly mentioned that Will will be anteing up again for the next two classes, also another $20. Oh, no, it was $15 a week. Well, no, I didn't mention the amount of money. I'm sorry. Thanks for reminding me. So those who will be coming, it'll be $15 for the remaining two sessions that you can bring a check or cash next week or if you have it now.

[52:07]

And that will take care of the financial process. Thank you. Yes? I was wondering if you could say something about your understanding about how the word therefore and the word therefore and thus are used because something is not, therefore it is. Something is, say that again? I don't think there's any ... Well, actually in Sanskrit there's no difference between the therefore and the thus.

[53:15]

And it's just the contradiction between the terms is very bald and just separated by these thus's and therefore's. And it's not like really what another way to phrase it would be, with that in mind we call them dharmas. It really is therefore. It's not like I would think, well what if it just says there, you know. They're not dharmas, therefore we call them dharmas. But what they really mean is they're not dharmas, and with that in mind, we call them dharmas. Right. But it's really more like therefore. Well, you can do both. I don't know. What's the difference? Because. Therefore means because. Because they're not, we call them they are. Oh, I see. But therefore implies some kind of logical thing in the background, a causal thing, which we're not implying here. Is that really being implied? Is there a causal connection between those two? Say this whole thing again. I have a good example sentence.

[54:28]

Okay. What the Tathagata says are world systems, the Tathagata says are no systems, thus they are called world systems. There's no because there, it's just therefore and again the Sanskrit It just can be translated either thus or therefore. I would say with that in mind they are called world systems. And you think that works? Yeah. I honestly don't see the difference. It's not a thus. Thus implies a logical connection between two things. Because A plus A equals B and B equals C. Thus A equals C. That's a good use for the word thus. It's not exactly the same, but bearing that in mind. Yeah, you said, instead of thus said, bearing in mind that world systems are no systems, bearing that in mind they're called world systems because it's efficacious to be able to call things things.

[55:34]

You keep in mind that they aren't really those concepts are really empty, and those things are really empty. Bear that in mind, you can use dharmas in a way that's elusive. Well, but see, but it's true what you say though about the word thus having this logical connection, but thus also means like this. If you look in a dictionary, thus also means like this, and that would be the same thing that you're saying. So I think thus has... Oh, I see, well... I guess what we're... It's their framework, the framework of these people here, who put this together, who composed this, or the framework of Sun Yat-sen, that they are working within some kind of semi or pseudo... what do you call it? Pseudo-logic. It's a convention of some sort. There seems to be a convention behind this, in terms of this kind of dialogue, which purports to be logical, and it isn't.

[56:40]

but the logical portion of it doesn't seem to follow. It would be easiest for us to say, you know, these dharmas don't exist, no dharmas exist, but yet we talk about them because, you know, we're not in an enlightened state as we talk about them. We have to talk about things. Yes? Are you suggesting that the thus is the thus of thus have I heard? It's thus have I heard, it's also the thus come one. Yeah, that's why I say I see both meanings are possible but I hadn't really thought about it much. to this logic which doesn't hold from a philosophy course in elementary logic.

[57:54]

Yeah, because we can't get anything out of a negative. I mean, the negation of something, if we have A and then not A, we can't get thus A? How can we do that? How can we do that? We can't. It's true the way we normally understand things. Well I think that you know it's true there's a logic doesn't exist in a vacuum and this is certainly the Buddha was talking to an audience who understood how he was using terms and that if we could just understand that a given Dharma is not in itself real Therefore, we're liberated from it, and now that we've liberated ourselves from it, we can talk about it. Because he is also backing Subuddhi into a corner, you know, into this frustration where something has to shift there. I mean, it is at a point where Subuddhi can't hold on to his previous idea.

[58:58]

That's true. Yeah, I really don't know much. I haven't really thought about it much about in terms of this, whether to describe it in terms of logic. Because it does transcend what we normally think of because of this, it takes the negation and it affirms the usefulness of the negation. Yes? my two cents. I'm not really bothered by the logical thus just because I mean I'm looking at maybe a different line that says Bhagavan is cosmic being whom the Tathagata says has a great and perfect body.

[60:04]

Bhagavan that the Tathagata says has no body, thus it is called a great and perfect body. So I mean it's a body that has a nobody then can be great and perfect. It's like I see a therefore relationship there that makes sense. I think you're reading it. Yeah, well I think it works both ways and I don't think they have to be exclusive. I think it helps to establish the logical connection and it also helps to transcend it by just because of course the word thus is used all the time in Indian Buddhism just as a gesture of the truth. And so, there's this. Excuse me? We'll see that. you know, like this, or in this way, this manner, and therefore, there's a little difference in emphasis whether you say in this manner or therefore, but even in this manner means in this logical manner, and proceeding in this fashion.

[61:18]

Yes? So, would you be saying that, could it be translated like if we, as long as we bear in mind that A is not A, that A is empty or whatever. yes that's exactly what the buddha says here and and and subhuti too but by now subhuti is understands this dialectic but that's exactly what he means he says because this sutra is about transcending emptiness and it begins with subhuti saying you can't see the buddha's body in short he says a is not a that's in chapter five and the buddha uh corrects him and says oh but you can see my body if you see that [...] not a is that's a that's when you see me is when you see all attributes as not attributes then that's when you see me so this whole sutra has been a process of teaching subhuti to let go of emptiness let go of not a and to play around with a play around with not a as a let not a be a or even uh you could say that as long as you know this is just a matter of speaking yes yeah and and the reason

[62:38]

But that's a worthy field of discussion, this logic. It runs throughout the whole sutra. Just like on the one hand you have this body of merit thing, on the other hand you have this logical negation of affirmation thing going on. Yes? I don't know if this oversimplifies it, but in a way isn't he just saying the word moon is not a moon, sort of like when he greets, this is not a pipe? In a way, isn't that what he's saying? I've never heard that. The idea that A is not A because you're using the word A and the word is not the thing. Oh. Oh. I don't think it's linguistic. He's talking about concepts, dharmas. Yes, do you have a question? in both ways.

[63:46]

But they're not quite the same. Because A implies not A. It says that by knowing what A is, everything else other than A is not A. Well, then we look back at A with new eyes when once we've seen A is not A. When we look at A and say, oh, A after all has no basis, has no foundation in time or space. A can't possibly exist as A other than as a word. Well, it can't exist as A outside of everything that is not A. Yes, that's true. Not A defines A, but because it defines A, it also defines it as not existing, and therefore it wasn't there in the first place, because it depended on all these other things to be defined as a separate entity and wasn't real in itself. But there is this distinction between saying they are the same thing and that they are interdependent.

[64:52]

You can't define one without the other. Yes, right, but the Buddha underlined this whole sutra's idea that even though emptiness is an important concept, the practice of prajna requires us putting something to use. We have to put emptiness to work and that's why there's this thus thing, thus we talk about such and such. Well, no, actually, well, maybe we don't need two more classes because we've just dealt with, actually, the crucial things in the sutra is what we've just talked about. Well, this transition seems to be really coming to a head here in Chapter 18. Yes. I guess our puzzle has been that we couldn't really quite see how this transition was coming about through this, you know. Well, we got new eyes now. Now we have eyes.

[65:53]

We have eyes, and that's why, yeah, we'll go over 18 then. So the, yeah, there's five eyes that the Buddhas talk about. So I'll go over them and we'll talk about them as we go through. So the Buddha said, because he wants to see what subhuti, he knows what subhuti sees, but he doesn't think, subhuti doesn't know what he sees. So the Buddha said, Sabuddhi, what do you think? Does the Tathagata, that is someone who has realized enlightenment, possess, or this enlightenment that's not an enlightenment, does he possess a physical eye? So the way the Buddhists, and then he goes through the divine eye, and Sabuddhi says, yes, you've got a divine eye. Then a Prajna eye, yes, you've got a Prajna eye. A Dharma eye, yes, you've got a Dharma eye. Buddha eye, yep, you've got a Buddha eye. Well, these eyes, are meant to expand Subuddhi's appreciation for what the Buddha is seeing here when he's viewing that which is real, the word Tathagata.

[66:59]

A physical eye, the way the commentators describe these five eyes, the physical eye is blocked by something as thin as a piece of paper. I put up a piece of paper, I can't see you. And so that's how a physical eye is defined, something that can be obstructed. A sensory organ that can be obstructed is our physical eye. The divine eye cannot be obstructed. The divine eye is seized in the realm of form and formlessness. The divine eye is possessed by the gods. Of course, deva, the devas, which we get our word divine from deva. So the divine eye is the eye of gods and it can see the outside and the inside of things and is not obstructed by form. It has complete freedom, whereas our physical eye is the eye of the realm of desire and cannot see through forms. The divine eye sees through forms, penetrates forms, but yet still perceives the outside and the inside both.

[68:07]

And that's the divine eye. And then you get to the Prajna eye. The Prajna eye sees the formless realm, the formless realm of emptiness. Prajna is, the Prajna eye is the eye that Subuddhi has. That's his eye. He sees the emptiness of things. So it not only sees the, it sees through forms and sees the inherent emptiness in all things. And again, this is the eye that arhans, that people in the Srivaka path acquire, the prajna eye. They do not acquire the last two eyes, and that's why the Buddha introduces this concept of a vision that can be expanded beyond what you think vision works in. So he says the dharma eye, The dharma eye is what we've been talking about. It's the eye that perceives the emptiness of things, but also sees the usefulness of those things and puts them to use.

[69:14]

The dharma eye is essential for apaya, for skillful means. The dharma eye perceives dharmas. It's these things the Buddhists call Buddhadharmas. and so Bodhisattvas acquire the Dharma eye, the Hinayana, the Arhants acquire the Prajna eye and then there's the Buddha eye which encompasses all these eyes and sees all five of them and penetrates without obstruction and is also perceives the middle path between emptiness and dharmas And so, having just reminded or acquainted Sabuddhi with the idea of the realm that we're talking about now is not your, we're not in Kansas anymore. We're now talking about the Dharma eye and the Buddha eye and not the Prajna eye.

[70:19]

So, the Buddha said, Sabuddhi, what do you think? As many grains of sand as there are in the great river of the Ganges. Does the Tathagata not speak of them as grains of sand? Subuddhi replied, so he does, Bhagavan, so he does, Sugata. The Tathagata speaks of them as grains of sand. So this is, to see the grains of sand in the Ganges, you use your physical eye. And the Buddha said, so what do you think, Subuddhi, if there were as many rivers as all the grains of sand in the great river of the Ganges, and as many worlds as there are grains of sand in all these rivers, would there be many worlds? Subuddhi replied, so there would, Bhagavan, so there would, Sagata, there would be many worlds. And of course, this is the use of the divine eye, because our physical eye cannot possibly penetrate that sort of, this sort of dimension where we can see worlds and grains of sand and then all the grains of sand and the rivers in those worlds again this is only capable only the divine eye is capable of this so the buddha's sort of leading them along the buddha says okay now as many beings as there might be in those worlds subhuti i would know their myriad streams of thought

[71:39]

which can perceive thoughts. And how so streams of thought, subhuti, what the Tathagata speaks of as streams of thought are not streams. Thus are they called streams of thought. And how so, subhuti, a past thought cannot be found, a future thought cannot be found, nor can a present thought be found. So the Buddha now sees the emptiness of these thoughts, but also puts these thoughts into perspective in a way that can be used to be liberated from these thoughts. This is very similar to when the second patriarch of Zen was telling the Bodhidharma that he had this mind that was needed pacifying, calming. And Bodhidharma said, well, show me this mind. Show me this mind and I'll pacify it. And the second patriarch says, well, I can't find it.

[72:44]

And Bodhidharma said, well, there, I've pacified it for you. Oh, right. That's another example of this. You can't get at a thought, the present thought, the past thought, or the future thought. because there's a little linguistic joke in Chinese where a cake in Chinese, a snack, is called a thought pointer, is a dianxian, to point at a thought. the Chinese ancient expression for a cake and so once this diamond sutra master by the name of Dashaan was trying to buy some cakes from this woman and she said, well I'll sell you one of these cakes if you tell me which thought the Buddha had in mind. when he said there's no thought, no present thought, no future thought, no present, no past thought and Dushan couldn't do it and he was carrying with him at the time this huge commentary he had written to the Diamond Sutra and then he just threw it away because he couldn't respond to her question.

[73:58]

So the Buddha sees Subuddhi's thoughts and he wants Subuddhi to break free of these streams of thought to get beyond the idea that enlightenment is a thought or even that emptiness is a thought. So this is sort of like also an answer. Remember, just in 17, Sabuddhi asked those same questions again that he asked in chapter two where he asks how to dwell and how to practice and how to control our thoughts. And so this is how we control our thoughts. We try to find our thoughts. And of course, can't find our thoughts. So again, this is the Buddhists talking again about the selfless, birthless nature of all dharmas.

[75:00]

These thoughts are like any other dharmas, we cannot find them. Oh, and yeah, the Buddha also, I should say the Buddhists, These are, of course, Buddhists with a lot of time on their hands. One thought could be divided into 90 moments, 90 kshanas. You could divide a thought into 90 little bits and each of these kshanas or moments could be divided into 900 cycles. So there have been a lot of Buddhists who've had a lot of time on their hands, it seems The Buddhists come up with all these things, even though the Buddha just wants people to realize streams of thought, streams of thought. Suddenly Buddhists are taking measuring cups and measuring the streams. It's really odd how Buddhism develops. But anyway, streams of thought, a future thought cannot be found, nor can a present thought be found.

[76:01]

and be experiencing it. But you wouldn't know, you wouldn't know if it's present or not. You wouldn't know if it's present because where does the present thought and the past thought separate? And the same with the future thought. I mean there's no, it's true you might have a thought. I don't know whether I am in the present or the future. Well that's why the Buddha calls these streams of thought. He's talking about finding thoughts. Take a look at the present thought, it's immediately the past thought. That's true too, it is. But even if you don't divide them ... It was present. It was, it was. But even ... Like that, like that. That's no longer it. Let it go. Which thought did you just let go? But Buddhism is basically a religion of psychology or the first science of psychology. That's all it really deals with is thoughts.

[77:27]

And so the Buddha wanted Subuddhi to realize that all thoughts are like a stream and you can't get a hold of them. and to perceive things with this dharma eye, though, that even though they're empty, we can put those thoughts to use, because even though you can't find these thoughts, he wants you to give rise to a thought. That's the difference between prajna, the prajna eye, and the dharma eye. Even though you see all these thoughts you can't hold of, the dharma eye, but he's telling you you've got to give rise to a thought to liberate all beings. So that's a contradiction, but yet it's the contradiction that the Bodhisattva deals with and practices. Despite not being able to find any thoughts, the Bodhisattva gives rise to a thought. So the Buddha then immediately proceeds into 19 and says, so what do you think? If some good son or daughter filled the billion worlds of this universe with the seven jewels and gave them all as a gift to the Tathagatas, the Arhats, the fully enlightened ones, would the body of merit produced as a result by that good son or daughter be great?

[78:35]

Subuddhi replied, �It would be great, Bhagavan. It would be great, Sugatha.� The Buddha said, �So it would, Subuddhi. So it would. The body of merit produced� because now, of course, he's treating things with the dharma eye, not the prajna eye. Before, Subuddhi would say, �No, no, no, no, no. It wouldn't be great because, of course, it's not a body.� But the Buddha sort of has gotten to the point where he can, subhuti, does see things as dharmas. But then the Buddha says, so would the body of merit produced as a result by that good son of daughter would be immeasurably, infinitely great. And how so? A body of merit, subhuti, the Tathagata has said that a body of merit is no body. Thus is it called a body of merit, which is what he's been saying before. And then he says this odd thing at the end. Subhuti, if there were a body of merit, the Tathagata would not have spoken of a body of merit as a body of merit. So this is exactly what we were talking about earlier. And the Buddhist being a little more frank about it.

[79:37]

Actually, this is probably as frank as he's been about it, this whole sutra. If anything actually existed that I'm talking about, then I wouldn't talk about it. The only reason why I'm talking about anything is because it doesn't exist. And that's why he talks about things, because they're dharmas. If they existed, then he wouldn't talk about them. Why not? Never mind, it's not in the sutra. No, it's not. It wouldn't be liberating. Well, there'd be no need for liberation if anything existed. If anything existed, then it would be the Tathagata. it would be equivalent to the Tathagata because if anything existed, it couldn't be delimited in space or time, therefore it would be like saying suchness, Tathagata. But because nothing exists, therefore we talk about it. It's the only thing there is to talk about. Exactly, it's the only thing we can talk about. There's nothing else we can talk about.

[80:38]

If something actually existed, we'd be speechless. Therefore, they're both empty. Right, but now that we've introduced the idea of non-existence, now we can start talking. Now we have something to talk. Sometimes I'm glad I wasn't alive during the Buddha's day. It's very embarrassing to sort of sit in front of this fellow. It's nice to have this separation. But anyway, that's a fascinating thing that he just said and a very important thing, too, to keep in mind regarding this dialectic that he's using and how he means the dialectic. And so you might want to come back and circle this little sentence and come back to it whenever the dialectic is giving you some problems. Just come back and take a look at that sentence again. The last sentence.

[81:41]

If there were a body of merit, The Tathagata would not have spoken of a body of merit as a body of merit. And therefore, we talk about bodies of merit that are no bodies of merit. Isn't that just the first verse of the Bhagavad-gita in there? The way that can become a way is not the immortal way? Right, if we can... Yes, uh-huh. If there was any way, then, right, we wouldn't have anything to talk about. mm-hmm right so let's do uh one more i think we we have time for what time is it quarter of okay let's do one more verse uh verse i have a verse i call them a verse So it's working, I guess. So Bodhi, what do you think? Can the Tathagata be seen? And now, having gone over these eyes and introduced the concept of the Dharma eye, which was the key, the crucial eye he wanted to remind Subodhi of, the Buddha eye too, but the Dharma eye is the eye that Bodhisattvas can acquire.

[82:57]

Sabuddhi, what do you think? Can the Tathagata be seen by means of the culmination of a physical body? I'm not sure I like culmination, but I stuck it in there. You could also say the perfection of a physical body. I might do that, but the reason I didn't put perfection in is because I've used it for perfection of wisdom, perfection as Paramita. but it's certainly the perfection of the physical body and it sounds like he's talking about his physical body here but he's not because of the adjective culmination or perfection. Perfection of physical body means the reward body because the reward body of the Buddha is still It's physical and not physical. It exists in the formless realm but yet it's considered to be the perfection of all physical trait characteristics. So he's again asking about this perfect body that the Buddha acquires or Bodhisattva acquires and thus the Buddha possesses too.

[84:03]

So can the Tathagata be seen by means of this perfection or culmination, the end of all physical bodies? Sabuddhi replied, no indeed, Bhagavan, the Tathagata cannot be seen by means of the end or culmination of all physical bodies. And why not? The culmination of a physical body, Bhagavan, the culmination of a physical body is spoken of by the Tathagata as no culmination, thus is it called, the culmination of a physical body. And the Buddha said, what do you think? Can the Tathagata be seen by means of the possession of attributes? So he's taking the body as a whole, And then he's now taking the body as made up of attributes. Just as he did earlier, he talks about the universe and then specks of dust. The universe does not exist if it's made up of specks of dust. Specks of dust don't exist if they constitute the universe, because each depends upon the other for its definition of reality. So Subuddhi replied, no, indeed, Bhagavan, the Tathagata cannot be seen by means of the possession of attributes.

[85:04]

And why not, Bhagavan? What the Tathagata speaks of as the possession of attributes is spoken of by the Tathagata as no possession of attributes. Thus is it called the possession of attributes. And again, we go back to that last sentence. If there were possession of attributes, the Tathagata would not have spoken of possession of attributes. So you can apply that little sentence at the end of the last chapter to any of these these dialectic things. I had a little thing I wrote at the end here. I said, throughout this sutra, the Buddha emphasizes the body of merit acquired by a bodhisattva as a result of practicing this teaching. But every time he mentions this immeasurable, inconceivable body of merit, he asks the Buddha if he can see the Buddha's real body. The bodhisattva's body of merit is the same as the Buddha's sambhogakaya, or award body. This was the body produced by Samedha upon giving rise to the thought of enlightenment. at his meeting Dipamkhara and fully realized by Shakyamuni many lifetimes later under the Bodhi tree.

[86:09]

And yet these bodies are not real, for both the reward body and the body of merit are the result of practice and subject to destruction. But the Buddha is concerned that those who practice this teaching might become attached to such a body and see it as some kind of higher self. Thus do Zen masters recommend, when you meet the Buddha, kill the Buddha. So that's what this chapter is about, transcending the bodies of the Buddha. Any questions on this? Yeah? You said this is a big contrast to Chapter 5 where they talk about the attributes of the Buddha or the body of merit as being no attributes, but it's by way of these illusory attributes you can see the Buddha. Right. That's what it says in Chapter 5. Here again, it's later on, and it's saying, well, it's just the Buddha who's saying that you can't see the Buddha, actually, I noticed. It's not the Buddha who's saying you can't see.

[87:12]

the way of the attributes. because they are no possession of attributes, and it stops right there. He doesn't complete the dialectic, if we can call it that. He doesn't fulfill that last condition, the last term in the logic, whereas here he does. Thus we call them attributes, right? Thus is it called the possession of attributes, whereas he isn't able to do that in Chapter 5. He's gotten further along. Yes, exactly. The whole sutra... by way of these attributes, which are no attributes. That's true. It's been also my perception too that Subuddhi never really fully understands this teaching in this sutra, although he definitely understands a lot of it, but he's never able to enunciate it in a way that fits in with what the Buddha says.

[88:37]

He picks up the logical technique and that's as far as he gets. And he doesn't get beyond that. In chapter seven, he gets hung up in the uncreated. And I don't know of any point where he gets beyond the uncreated. Well, he lets the uncreated go. Now he just hangs on to this logical technique. And I think that it actually becomes his koan. I think that's his koan. And he realizes that this is what he's got to break through, is this logical thing. And that's why he keeps repeating it. And there's one chapter we'll see in chapter 26, I believe it is, where he actually repeats himself. And he actually says it in a way where it becomes clear that he cannot go beyond this. This is as far as he can see. In chapter 26, later on, you might notice that that's as good as he can do. Well, I guess we'll stop with chapter 20 today. That leaves us a 12 more chapters.

[89:38]

So we should be able to do six or seven next week and then six or seven the following week. That's true. We have 10 minutes. Well, I'm doing fine. You want to do another chapter? Sure. OK. OK. Chapter 21. The Buddha said Subhuti. What do you think? Does it occur to the Tathagata? I teach a Dharma. No, indeed, Bhagavan, it does not occur to the Tathagata, I teach a dharma. The Buddha said, sabuddhi, if someone should claim the Tathagata teaches a dharma, their claim would be untrue. Such a view of me, sabuddhi, would be a misconception. And how so? In the teaching of a dharma, sabuddhi, in the teaching of a dharma there is no such dharma to be found as the teaching of a dharma. Again, this is the nirmanakaya of the Buddha, the dharma, the body in which the Buddha teaches the dharma. Upon hearing this, the venerable Subuddhi asked the Buddha, Bhagavan, will there be any beings in the future, in the final epoch, in the final period, in the final 500 years of the dharma-ending age, who hear a teaching such as this and believe it?

[90:50]

So even though I don't teach any dharma, Subuddhi's asking, will there be anybody who hears this dharma that isn't taught? and believe it. And the Buddha says, neither beans, Sabuddhi, nor no beans. Earlier he just said no beans in the, I think it was chapter 17. He was saying, the Buddha said, told Sabuddhi there are no beans. But here he says, there's neither beans nor no beans. And how so beans, Sabuddhi? Beans are all spoken of by the Tathagata. Sabuddhi is no beans, thus are they called beans. And so my little note here, in the previous chapter, the Buddha examined his sambhogakaya or reward body. which is a Buddhist version of the bodhisattva's body of merit. In this chapter he considers his dharmakāya, or real body. The dharmakāya is also called the body of scripture because it is the dharmakāya that teaches the dharma, or that is the dharma, and it teaches it in the form of the nirmanakāya.

[91:54]

Earlier the Buddha said that a bodhisattva does not set forth on the bodhisattva path. He now says that neither does a buddha teach a dharma. This is because bodhisattvas and buddhas are not attached to such spatial entities as self and being or such temporal entities as life and rebirth. Nor are they attached to such conceptual entities as dharmas or no dharmas. Hence, Buddhas do not teach dharmas, much less know dharmas. Buddhas teach in order to liberate beings. This is the meaning of Buddha dharmas, which are the dharmas taught by every Buddha, including Shakyamuni, and which are neither dharmas nor know dharmas. But, oh, well, I cut myself off there. That's as far as it goes. I didn't think we would get this far. But this is, again, The whole sutra is about bodies. The Buddha begins with his body in action when he goes into town to beg for food and the body throughout the sutra is perceived as all bodies only exist as offerings.

[93:02]

Every body is a body as an offering. The Buddha offers his body when he goes to town. The people in town offer these balls of rice, which are their offering to the Buddha. The Buddha tells us to offer up our thoughts, give rise to thoughts of liberating all beings, and then divest ourselves of these other, offer up the idea of self, being, life, soul, and thus we get this huge body of merit, which we also offer up. So this whole sutra is about bodies, acquiring bodies, and then as soon as you get a body, you offer it. to offer bodies? Yes, the offering of... that no body exists except as an offering. If you don't think so, you just haven't looked hard enough. That's why he uses this myth of parusha, because this very world in which we live in is in fact an offering.

[94:09]

It was the offering of parusha. But we just don't think of it in those terms, but it is an offering. And so any entity that we see as an entity is an offering. And in fact, we also can use it as an offering if we perceive it as a Buddhadharma. If we take it as a dharma and then put it to use as an offering. If we receive it and then perceive it as an offering and then sort of pass it on. is passing on the offering, is sort of the teaching of the sutra, passing on the offering. And yeah, that's why it talks throughout the sutra of entities. the ball of rice, the body of merit, the beings, selves, parusha, renouncing self-existence, all these things, these dharmas, everything is an entity in this sutra. And as soon as the Buddha brings up one of these entities, a thought, it's offered up to liberate all beings, yes.

[95:14]

I guess to personalize it, to give people a carrot. Well, usually, I'm the only person who does talk about the body of merit. All other translators talk about the pile of merit. Or the accumulation of merit, or the aggregate of merit, or the store of merit, or the stock of merit, because the word they translate is the word skandha, the skandha of merit. And the reason it is is because merit is karmic. Merit is just a good deed. And when we do a good deed, we create karma. And it happens to be good karma because merit means karma that is to some extent selfless. has an element of selflessness in it. And when our deeds are completely selfish, then that, they're completely bad.

[96:29]

That's bad karma. And when they're completely selfless, that's good karma. That's merit, that creates merit. But their merit always has some element of self in it. It's never completely selfless. And so, when we perform these deeds, we are actually projecting a body into the future. Our merit is our good karma and our merit actually projects this body of cause and effect beginning right now into the future. So as soon as we do something and we gain merit, we're actually acquiring essentially a body. It's more like the projection of cause. than what we normally think of in terms of a body, but it's our projected body from all of our selfless deeds is projected in space and time. And the Buddha contrasts that kind of body of merit with one which is projected beyond space and time, which in fact is no body of merit.

[97:32]

The other one is actually no body of merit too, but the Buddha wants us to see that there's a body of merit that we can acquire, which is the same as his body. which is completely selfless because it's dedicated to the liberation of all beings, but it also involves the world of karma. It's not separate from the world of karma. It still takes place in the realm of cause and effect, and we do create this body, and we liberate people not in space. We liberate them with a, we have to have a tool, a means for liberation, and that's why body of merit, and that's why I make a point of translating body of merit, because the sutra is about bodies. And every time you'll notice, whenever the Buddha's talking about creating this body of merit, usually immediately after, in the next chapter, he'll say, so can you see my body? So he's making the identification between this body of merit and his own reward body. And that's why it's not pile of merit. It's not a pile of merit and then his body.

[98:34]

Those aren't the same thing. At least poetically it doesn't work for me. Yes? I think body is a really great metaphor in English, and we do have that use in English. I mean, aside from the corporal notion, we have a body of literature. That's exactly true. We have a sense of... We do project. Creating a structure. I think so too. Also the word that is used is skanda and skanda means the body up to the shoulders. It meant a tree up to where it branches off and it meant a body up to the shoulders and in chapter 15 you'll notice the Buddha said if you practice this teaching you'll wear enlightenment upon your shoulders the same as I do. And so it's very clear that the Buddha's idea of skanda here is not a pile. His idea is that it's a body up to the shoulders. And the reason that it's up to the shoulders is because that's the body that carries something.

[99:36]

That's the body that carries the weight of the dharma. Because you then carry the weight of doing, of helping others. And you have this idea of forbearance, to bearing the weight of the realization that no dharmas exist. But I think putting, I've tried to, whenever I've encountered translation difficulties in the sutra, I've always tried to come up with a solution that had some poetic merit. Because I always think of poetry as being superior to prose in terms of being closer to the truth. That's why I use body of merit. It makes better sense, better poetic sense to me. Did you have a question? Yeah, have you heard the term retribution body? Yeah, maybe I have but that's another translation of reward it probably it probably would be but it certainly it doesn't sound good Sounds terrible. It's like a punishment body. I thought that was the mnemonic diet Well, maybe it is

[100:40]

Maybe it is, but certainly that, yeah. The Buddhists, it took them a long time before they came up with this concept of multiple bodies, but it started right after the Buddha's Nirvana, when the people had to start to deal with the true nature of the Buddha. Ma, do you have a question? Okay, well, let's end right here for today, and I'll see you all next Saturday.

[101:04]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ