Imperial Commentary on the Diamond Sutra: Exposition, Volume 1

Compiled by the Monk Daoyin, Imperial Preceptor and Lecturer

Preface: The ultimate truth is vast and profound, its principles are difficult to grasp; enlightenment is deep and boundless, fundamentally beyond words. Yet, we speak from the realm of no-speech and establish names in the nameless realm. This is because sentient beings wander in darkness, lost in the ocean of delusion. Thus, we light the torch to illuminate the dark paths and build bridges to ferry all beings across. The arising of teachings is indeed a great and profound endeavor. Moreover, Prajñā is the mother of all buddhas, and the Diamond Sūtra contains indestructible verses. It encompasses all teachings yet stands alone, surpassing all scriptures in its soaring wisdom. Through three inquiries and nine metaphors, it reveals the truth from beginning to end; through eight attachments and five wrong views, it dissolves all mental constructs and verbalizations. The Buddha’s care and entrustment—how could this path be walked in vain?

In the twenty-third year of the Kaiyuan era of the Great Tang, during the reign of Emperor Xuanzong, the four gates were harmonious, and all affairs were well-ordered. The highest teachings spread boundlessly, and profound wisdom flourished across the land. With deep contemplation, the emperor elucidated the teachings of Confucianism and Daoism, while also embracing the wondrous enlightenment of Buddhism, providing commentary on this sutra. His words shone brightly, illuminating the subtle and profound, revealing hidden truths. The celestial writings radiated splendor, and the Buddha’s light grew even brighter, surpassing the ages and setting an example for all rulers.

Subsequently, the capital city engraved these teachings on stone and metal, disseminating them throughout the land. They cleansed the minds and ears of all beings, shattering the cages of demonic attachments. Such a rare opportunity had not been seen for countless eons—how fortunate we are to witness it now!

I, though confined by illness to the woods and marshes, secluded for years, have reverently studied the emperor’s profound teachings and felt immense joy. Now entrusted with the task of promoting these teachings, I strive with my limited strength to elucidate their profound meanings. Though my abilities are humble and the responsibility great, I dare not withhold my words.

It is said that when the ruler leads, the ministers follow, like threads woven into a wheel. Without broadly referencing the teachings, how can we clarify their meaning? Therefore, I have gathered various commentaries and aligned them with the six classics, expressing them in writing. Like gathering the tusks of rhinoceroses and elephants, or collecting pearls from rivers and seas, I seek to adorn the celestial writings and enrich their meaning. Yet, a small stream adds little to the vast ocean, and the glow of a firefly does not enhance the sun’s radiance. Nevertheless, I offer my utmost devotion and diligence.

The commentary on the sutra’s title is divided into four parts:

1. Explaining the metaphor: Like a diamond, the ultimate treasure, it can shatter all hardness. 2. Explaining wisdom: It is the true wisdom of prajna, capable of destroying afflictions. 3. Clarifying virtue: It is non-attachment and non-grasping, like crossing the river and abandoning the raft. It is the unity of form and emptiness, realizing enlightenment in the middle way. 4. Explaining the sutra: It teaches how to subdue the mind and abide in permanence. Thus, it is called the *Diamond Sutra of Prajna Paramita*.

**Commentary on the Praise Sutra. A Brief Introduction in Five Sections.**

1. Explaining the reasons for the teaching's emergence. 2. Clarifying the essential nature of the sutra. 3. Summarizing its core tenets. 4. Identifying the suitable recipients. 5. Providing a proper explanation of the text.

**I. Explaining the Reasons for the Teaching's Emergence**

This is elaborated in two parts: first, explaining the intent behind the teaching's emergence; second, recounting the era of its translation.

**A. Explaining the Intent Behind the Teaching's Emergence**

This is further divided into two: first, an explanation based on treatises; second, a general analysis and comparison.

**1. Explanation Based on Treatises**

Bodhisattva Asanga, in explaining the intent of the three questions [in the Diamond Sutra], states in his treatise: "Why did the Elder Subhuti raise these questions?" There are six reasons. Moreover, the entire purpose of the sutra lies precisely in these three questions. Subhuti is the primary figure who initiated the teaching. Since he had this intent, the World-Honored One answered in accordance with the questions, and thus their intent must be the same. Therefore, these six reasons constitute the intent behind the teaching's emergence.

What are these six? The treatise states: 1. To cut off doubt. 2. To give rise to faith and understanding. 3. To enter into the profound meaning. 4. To attain non-retrogression. 5. To give rise to joy. 6. To ensure the long abiding of the true Dharma.

This means the Perfection of Wisdom (Prajnaparamita) causes the Buddha-seed to never be cut off. How does it cause the Buddha-seed to never be cut off? * Those with doubts have them cut off. * Bodhisattvas who delight in merit but whose minds are not yet matured, upon hearing of the great merit associated with the Perfection of Wisdom, give rise to faith and understanding. * Those with matured minds enter into the profound meaning. * Those who have attained non-disdain, due to eagerly upholding and practicing it and possessing much merit, do not regress. * Those who have attained proper engagement and a purified mind experience joy themselves in the Dharma and seeing others [practice it]. * It enables the Mahayana teaching to abide long in the world in the future.

**Commentary:** The first five reasons are for the benefit and happiness of sentient beings; the last one is for the long abiding of the true Dharma. Among the first five: the first two are for those outside the Buddha-Dharma who, having doubts, cannot generate firm faith. The next two are for those who have already entered the Buddha-Dharma; although they aspire to the true Dharma, they do not understand how to progress in practice. The last one is for those who are already progressing in practice but have not yet realized and penetrated [the truth]. The teaching exists solely to help the uncomprehending to comprehend and the unliberated to be liberated. If one has already realized and awakened, words and teachings completely vanish. Therefore, here, it is to enable sentient beings: those without faith to have faith, those who have not practiced to practice, those who have not penetrated to penetrate.

Furthermore, these six causes can be grouped into three pairs: 1. The pair of eliminating doubt and giving rise to faith. 2. The pair of generating wisdom and accumulating merit. 3. The pair of awakening to principle and promoting the teaching.

Also, the preceding cause can lead to the succeeding one: because doubt is cut off, faith and understanding arise; because faith and understanding arise, one enters the profound Dharma; because one enters the profound Dharma, one attains non-retrogression; because of non-retrogression, joy arises; because of joy, the Dharma abides long. The matching of these to stages and grounds will be explained in the relevant text.

Furthermore, based on the treatise by Bodhisattva Gunaprabha, it is said: "All Dharma spoken by the Buddha returns to two truths: 1) Conventional Truth, and 2) Ultimate Truth." * **Conventional Truth** refers to ordinary people, Sravakas, Pratyekabuddhas, Bodhisattvas, Tathagatas, and even names, meanings, objects of knowledge, karmic results, and their interrelations.

**Commentary:** Within Conventional Truth, there are differences in persons and dharmas. Among persons, there are ordinary beings and sages. Among sages, there are the three vehicles. Within the Mahayana, there are causes and results. Among dharmas, there are the expresser and the expressed, the cognizing subject and the cognized object, the cause and the effect, each interrelated. This is called Conventional Truth.

The treatise further states: **Ultimate Truth** means that regarding all this, there is nothing whatsoever to be attained. As it is said, the supreme meaning is not an object traversed by knowledge, let alone words. It is even without action, without the fruit of action, and without the lineage of the sages.

After explaining the Two Truths, the treatise then correlates them with the sutra. It states: "Therefore, in this Prajnaparamita, it speaks of unattached giving, the formlessness of all dharmas, their ungraspability, inexpressibility, the selflessness of persons and dharmas, non-attainment, nothing to realize, nothing to accomplish, no coming, no going, etc." This explains the Ultimate Truth. It also speaks of "internal and external, worldly and world-transcending, all characteristics of dharmas, and all meritorious qualities." This establishes the Conventional Truth. One should understand it thus.

**Commentary:** The six sense objects are "external"; the five eyes are "internal." Form is "external"; mind is "internal." Sentient beings and the physical world constitute the "worldly." The unconditioned and the undefiled constitute the "world-transcending." All these are collectively called "all characteristics of dharmas." The comparative measurement of body, life, wealth, the merit of upholding the sutra, etc., constitutes "all meritorious qualities."

The treatise's intent is that sentient beings, not recognizing the Two Truths, constantly dwell in sinking and drowning. To enable sentient beings to recognize and penetrate the Two Truths, generate superior wisdom, and attain liberation, a verse says: "Not without seeing Suchness can one understand all conditioned things. They are all like an illusionist's creations; though they exist, they are not real." By contemplating the supreme meaning, one generates correct wisdom and awakens to emptiness. By penetrating the conventional, one generates subsequently attained knowledge and understands dependent arising.

Briefly, there are six pairs [of wisdom]: 1. Wisdom of principle / Wisdom of phenomena. 2. Wisdom of the All-Knowing (Sarvajnata) / Wisdom of the Knowledge of All Modes (Sarvakarajnata). 3. Wisdom like awakening from sleep and dreams / Wisdom like a lotus flower blooming. 4. Wisdom of emptiness / Wisdom of existence. 5. Wisdom for self-benefit / Wisdom for benefiting others. 6. Wisdom of knowing things as they are / Wisdom of knowing all things in their variety.

The immeasurable meritorious qualities of all Buddhas and Bodhisattvas have these two wisdoms as their fundamental cause. Because one recognizes the true and the conventional, this wisdom arises. Therefore, the sutra is spoken to enable awakening to the Two Truths.

Furthermore, because of realizing the true, wisdom arises and one does not abide in samsara. Because of awakening to the conventional, compassion arises and one does not abide in nirvana. Or, it is the provisions for the non-abiding nirvana, eternally transcending the two vehicles, with benefit and happiness that are inexhaustible. Therefore, the sutra is spoken.

The above is the explanation based on treatises.

**2. General Analysis and Comparison**

Bodhisattva Asanga's [explanation] is based on generating practice from the teaching. Bodhisattva Gunaprabha's treatise is based on generating wisdom from the object [of knowledge]. Each relies on one meaning, and they are not contradictory. However, upon overall consideration, the sutra and the treatises, from one to six intents, comprehensively encompass the meaning.

* **Speaking of one intent:** It is to cause the Buddha-seed never to be cut off. Bodhisattva Asanga summarizes the six causes by saying: "This means the Perfection of Wisdom causes the Buddha-seed to never be cut off." If we reverse this intent, without the six causes—doubt not being cut off, etc.—superior wisdom does not arise, Suchness is not revealed, and the Buddha-seed is eternally cut off. Because the sutra is spoken, doubt is eliminated, faith arises, one enters the Dharma without regressing, joyfully disseminates it, and will attain perfect enlightenment. Therefore, it is said the Buddha-seed is never cut off. * **Speaking of two intents:** This refers to the aforementioned treatise's explanation of the Two Truths. * **Expanding to three intents:** 1. To awaken to the profundity and subtlety of the teaching and principle. 2. To initiate the wondrous practice of cutting off and cultivating. 3. To recognize the true and manifested aspects of the fruition's virtues. * The first point has two parts: first, the profundity of the teaching; second, the wondrousness of the principle. * **Profundity of the teaching:** The Buddha says, "The Perfection of Wisdom is not the Perfection of Wisdom." "All Buddhas arise from this sutra." Subhuti deeply understood the meaning and significance, wept tears of sorrow, and said, "From the past until now, the wisdom-eye I have attained has never before heard such a sutra." Asanga's treatise says, "To cause the Mahayana teaching to abide long in the world." Therefore, it extensively praises the merit of upholding and explaining it, surpassing the giving of immeasurable bodies and wealth, to let people know the teaching's profundity, that its merit is supremely great, and to concentrate on receiving and studying it. * **Wondrousness of the principle:** To reveal the principle of the formless Suchness, the ultimate Dharmakaya. Although the true principle is spoken, the Conventional Truth is not destroyed. Therefore, Gunaprabha's treatise, formulating names based on the sutra, states that by refuting grasping and attachment, one enters the Ultimate Truth; by not destroying provisional names, one awakens to and penetrates the Conventional Truth. The *Bai Lun* (Shatashastra), Chapter 10, states: "However, all spoken by the Buddha is profoundly deep. The Dharma-door of the Two Truths is the most difficult to fathom." The *Cheng Weishi Lun* (Vijnaptimatratasiddhi-shastra) states: "To negate the Two Truths is a pernicious view of emptiness. The Buddhas say this is incurable." Therefore, some say that when the Prajnaparamita sutras speak of "all is empty," it is not an exhaustive statement of principle. 2. **Initiating the wondrous practice of cutting off and cultivating.** This also has two parts: what is to be cut off, and what is to be cultivated. * **What is to be cut off:** To enter the Buddha-Dharma, faith is foremost. Hesitation and doubt obstruct the generation of pure faith. According to the treatise on initially entering the Dharma, it speaks of cutting off doubt. In reality, this sutra also cuts off other obstructions. Obstructions are of two kinds: afflictive and cognitive. Tracing their root, the two kinds of clinging are fundamental. This sutra precisely eliminates the clinging to self and dharmas. Once the root is exhausted, the branches and leaves perish accordingly. As in the sutra: "If there is the notion of a self, a person, a sentient being, or a life span, that is not a Bodhisattva," etc. This eliminates self-clinging. "There is no notion of dharmas, nor is there a notion of no-dharmas," etc. This eliminates dharma-clinging. Furthermore, obstructions are threefold, namely the three defilements: * "When I, in the past, was dismembered joint by joint, if I had the notion of a self, a person, a sentient being, or a life span, I would have generated hatred," etc. This eliminates the afflictive obstruction. * "Good sons and good daughters who uphold, recite, and study this sutra, if they are despised by others, their past evil karma will be eradicated," etc. This eliminates the karmic obstruction. * "You should know the meaning of this sutra is inconceivable, and its karmic retribution is also inconceivable," etc. This eliminates the retributive obstruction. Also, according to the *Ratnagotravibhaga* (Uttaratantra), there are four kinds of obstructions: 1. The icchantika's lack of faith. 2. The outsider's (tirthika) attachment to self. 3. The Sravaka's fear of suffering. 4. The Pratyekabuddha's mind of solitary peace. Now, within the sutra, extracting the meaning according to the text, it fully eliminates these four obstructions. For example: "A single thought of pure faith," "having planted roots of goodness under many Buddhas for a long time," "when faith is pure, then real marks are born," etc., all pertain to the first obstruction. Therefore, the treatise says: "Bodhisattvas who delight in merit but whose minds are not yet matured, upon hearing of the great merit associated with the Perfection of Wisdom, give rise to faith and understanding." Throughout the sutra, the teaching of no-self, etc., eliminates the second obstruction. "The Perfection of Patience is not the Perfection of Patience," etc., judged in the treatise as the abode of enduring suffering, eliminates the third obstruction. "Vast, supreme, constant, their minds not inverted," etc., and the mind of the four immeasurables, eliminates the fourth obstruction. "Those who delight in inferior dharmas," "then regarding this sutra they cannot receive, uphold, recite, or explain it to others," etc., and the text on non-abiding nirvana, generally eliminate the latter two obstructions. Also, according to Bodhisattva Asanga's eight abodes, they encompass those twelve [obstructions] for the sake of distancing from obstacles, each corresponding to eliminating them, such as scant learning, etc. Therefore, this sutra is spoken to eliminate obstructions. * **What is to be cultivated:** Although practices are myriad, they do not exceed the six perfections. Vasubandhu's treatise states: "The perfection of giving encompasses material goods, fearlessness, and the Dharma. Here, the first, second, and third are called the abode of practice." Also, relinquishing body and wealth, etc., is giving. "In the latter five hundred years, upholding precepts and cultivating merit," etc., is morality. Also, "detached from all marks," etc., is the morality of restraint. "Cultivating all wholesome dharmas to attain Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi," etc., is the morality of accumulating wholesome dharmas. "For the benefit of all sentient beings," etc., is the morality of benefiting sentient beings. These are the three cumulative pure precepts. Also, as in the *Yogacarabhumi*, aversion for the conditioned, etc., the three kinds of aspiration are causes for the three virtues. This is called morality. Patience is understandable. "For five hundred lifetimes, cultivating over a long time," this is vigor. The contemplative practices cultivated in the preceding and following texts are judged in the treatise as samadhi and vipasyana, etc. This is meditative concentration. The wisdom of emptiness is the sixth perfection. The perfection of the six perfections is the final illumination of the great sutra. Here, it briefly indicates and clarifies formless cultivation to induce subsequent [practice]. 3. **To recognize the true and manifested aspects of the fruition's virtues.** Although Subhuti's three questions are within the cause, the cause must tend toward the unsurpassed fruition. "Seeking me in form and sound, one does not see the Tathagata" refers to the true Dharmakaya. "Walking, standing, sitting, lying down" refers to the manifested Nirmanakaya. The manifested body is not the true Buddha, nor is it the one who speaks the Dharma. It enables recognition of the manifested body and seeking the true Buddha. Also, Gunaprabha's treatise explains: "How to abide" means: in what characteristic of the fruition does the mind abide and aspire? "How to practice" means: what practice should be cultivated to attain that fruition? "How to subdue" means: subduing the mind of equality to purify the cause. All dharmas have cause first and fruition later. Why does it first speak of the fruition? First praising the virtues of the fruition causes them to joyfully seek it and then cultivate the cause. Bodhisattva Asanga, within [his explanation], opens up three causes, encompassing principle, practice, and fruition. The object of the Two Truths permeates both fruition and cause.

The above concludes the three intents.

* **Expanding to four intents:** 1. To enable hearing the supreme teaching of no-speech. 2. To enable knowing the supreme principle of non-arising. 3. To enable cultivating the wondrous practice of non-attainment. 4. To enable attaining the ultimate fruition of the unconditioned. All are as in the sutra; one should seek and cite them. * **Expanding to five intents:** Add to the previous four: to enable acquiring the wondrous merit of the formless. * **Expanding to six intents:** These are the six causes from the treatise. That is, within the previous three intents, each is opened into two: 1. Teaching. 2. Principle. 3. Cutting off. 4. Cultivating. 5. True. 6. Manifested.

Therefore, based on the sutras and treatises, the overall intent is to enable eliminating doubt, cutting off obstructions, generating faith, initiating practice, recognizing the principles of true and conventional, acquiring the virtues of merit and wisdom, realizing the Dharmakaya fruition, and causing the Buddha-seed never to be cut off. This is the emergence of this sutra.

Regarding the era of translations: From the time Emperor Ming of Han had his dream, Kāśyapa Mātaṅga raised his staff, and Lokakṣema arrived in Luoyang, up until before Saṅghavarman traveled to Wu, the subtle teachings had already reached the Central Plains, yet this scripture had not yet spread to the land of China. Starting from the era of Fu Qin and continuing through the imperial reigns, there were six translations in total, each appearing at its destined time.

First, in the fourth year of the Hongshi era of the Later Qin (402 CE), the Dharma Master Kumārajīva translated it at the Caotang Temple in Chang'an. This version, titled *Shewei Guo* (The Kingdom of Śrāvastī), spanned eleven folios.

Second, in the second year of the Tianping era of the Northern Wei (535 CE), the Tripitaka Master Bodhiruci translated it in Luoyang. This version, titled *Poqiepo* (Bhagavān), spanned fourteen folios. At that time, he also translated the three-fascicle commentary by Bodhisattva Vasubandhu and the ten-fascicle *Jingang Xian Ji*.

Third, in the first year of the Taikang era of the Chen dynasty (566 CE), the Tripitaka Master Paramārtha translated it in the Southern Dynasties. This version, titled *Qituo Shulin* (The Jeta Grove), spanned fifteen folios, and he also produced a four-fascicle commentary.

Fourth, in the tenth year of the Kaihuang era of the Sui dynasty (590 CE), Dharmagupta translated it. This version, titled *Gang Duan Ge* (The Diamond Cutter), spanned sixteen folios, and he also translated the two-fascicle commentary by Bodhisattva Asaṅga.

Fifth, the Tripitaka Master Xuanzang of the Great Tang dynasty translated it during the Zhenguan era at the Yuhua Palace. This version, titled *Neng Duan Jingang* (The Diamond That Cuts), spanned eighteen folios. Furthermore, the Tripitaka Master Divākara (known as Rizhao) translated the two-fascicle commentary by Bodhisattva Guṇamati.

Sixth, the Tripitaka Master Yijing of the Great Zhou dynasty translated it in the second year of the Shengli era (699 CE) at the Foshouji Temple. This version, also titled *Neng Duan Jingang*, spanned twelve folios. Its opening reads: "Thus have I heard: The Bhagavān was in the great city of Śrāvastī, in the Jeta Grove..." He also retranslated the three-fascicle commentary by Bodhisattva Vasubandhu.

These transmissions across different eras are all excellent. Although the wording varies slightly, the Dharma treasure remains unchanged. This is primarily because the Sanskrit manuscripts obtained differed from one another, and the translators' approaches varied in their level of detail. By cross-referencing them, the principles and meanings become fully rounded.

If we consider the combination of sūtra and commentary, the Zhou and Wei versions each have their divisions. For a translation faithful to both Sanskrit and Chinese, the Zhenguan version is the most complete. As for being concise in wording yet profound in meaning, perfectly suited to the capacities and conditions of beings, with widespread copying throughout the world and constant recitation among monastics and laity alike—this surely applies to the *Shewei Guo* version. The radiance of the sacred text truly lies herein. Therefore, the present edition uses the commentaries from the Sui and Wei dynasties, appended to the sūtra from the Yao Qin period.

Question: The sūtra versions are clear, but regarding the various commentaries, please explain their authorship.

Answer: About nine hundred years after the Buddha's Parinirvāṇa, there were Asaṅga, a sage who had attained the First Bodhisattva Ground, and Vasubandhu, a lofty master of the *ūṣmagata* and *mūrdhan* stages. They were brothers in the worldly sense and teacher-disciple in the Dharma. Each composed a commentary to praise and propagate this scripture. However, the *Jingang Xian Ji* judges Vasubandhu's commentary, stating that the prose portion was originally spoken by Bodhisattva Maitreya to the unimpeded Bodhisattva, who then transmitted it to Vasubandhu. Vasubandhu later, seeking the intent of the sūtra and commentary, composed verses and extensively developed questions and answers to explain this sūtra.

This is not correct. In general commentaries, verses are the main body, explained by prose. How could there be explanation first and verses later? That would be like the son preceding the father. Furthermore, upon examining the prose, it repeatedly cites the verses. Would the future Buddha Maitreya, a Bodhisattva in the stage of non-retrogression, cite verses by a Bodhisattva still on the path of preparation as evidence? Therefore, this cannot be relied upon.

Now, based on the transmission of the Tripitaka Master Cien (Kuiji) and others, the eighty verses are composed by Bodhisattva Maitreya. There are complete biographies in the Western Regions attesting to this. If so, why does the commentary translated by Tripitaka Master Yijing state: "Verses by Asaṅga, explanation by Vasubandhu"?

Answer: The verses are definitely spoken by the Compassionate Lord (Maitreya). He taught them to Asaṅga, and Asaṅga transmitted them to Vasubandhu. Vasubandhu, having received them, composed the prose explanation. Therefore, the initial homage verse in that commentary states: "To the great wisdom that penetrates the teachings and instructs us, we pay homage to the body of immeasurable merit. We should revere such ones, bowing our heads to their feet and placing them on our crowns." This pays homage to both the original master of the commentary and the transmitter. The subsequent title of the commentary stating "by Asaṅga" is based on the transmission narrative and is not contradictory.

Question: Since Maitreya composed the verses, they should be the authoritative standard. Why then did Asaṅga compose his own separate commentary, creating a different approach?

Answer: The Dharma is subject to analysis, and principles can be approached through many paths. What the former commentary lacked, he supplemented to fill the gaps. Although the wording differs, the underlying principles are not at variance. When we reach the explanatory text, each point will be reconciled. If one relies solely on Asaṅga, the purpose of cutting off doubts may not be fully clear. If one relies solely on Vasubandhu, the stages of practice may be incomplete. To discuss both together is like the combined radiance of the sun and moon. To discard one partially would be to regret an incomplete treasure. Do not fear extensive learning; one should diligently encourage oneself.

The commentary by Guṇamati follows Vasubandhu's, though at times it offers different explanations that do not contradict the original meaning.

This concludes the first section on the arising of the teaching.

**Second: Clarifying the Nature of the Sutra's Essence**

First, the essence; then, the nature.

**On the Nature of the Essence in Various Teachings**

There are generally five levels:

**1. The Essence of Expressive Function (The "Able-to-Explain" Nature)** * **Names** express inherent characteristics. * **Phrases** express distinctions. * **Text** refers to written characters, which serve as the basis for the other two. These three—name, phrase, and text—depend on **sound**. They are discussed in terms of both the provisional and the real. Thus, the four factors of **sound, name, phrase, and text** constitute the essence. The *Daśabhūmika Sūtra Śāstra* states that both the speaker and the listener achieve understanding through two things: (1) good sound and (2) good characters. The *Cheng Weishi Lun* says that while these three (name, phrase, text) have no separate essence apart from sound, they differ from sound in being provisional vs. real. They are also not identical to sound. This is why the two unobstructed understandings (*pratisaṃvid*) of *dharma* and *artha* (meaning) have different objects: the *dharma* understanding pertains to names, etc., while the *artha* understanding pertains to sound.

**2. The Real Essence, with the Provisional Implicit** The essence, though consisting of name, phrase, and text, is provisionally established based on function. Having no separate essence, it does not exist apart from sound. Therefore, it is said that the holy teaching takes **sound** as its essential nature. The *Abhidharmasamuccaya* speaks of "that which is produced" (*saṃbhava*), referring to sound, not names, etc., as what is produced. The *Cheng Weishi Lun* also states that if names, phrases, and text existed as real entities separate from sound, they would be like form (*rūpa*), etc., and not truly capable of expressing meaning.

**3. The Essence of Both the Expressive and the Expressed** *Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra* Chapter 81 explains the essence of the sutras as having two aspects: (1) text and (2) meaning. It is through the expressive text that the meaning becomes manifest, etc. This essence combines both the **expressive (text)** and the **expressed (meaning)**, as a holy teaching must have a meaning it expresses.

**4. The Essence as Subsuming Dharmas within Mind** The *Avataṃsaka Sūtra* and others state, "The three realms are mind-only." Furthermore, sutras say, "What the various consciousnesses perceive is only the manifestation of consciousness." Treatises state that mind, mental factors, form, conditioned factors not associated with mind, and the unconditioned—none are separate from mind. Therefore, **consciousness-only mind** is the essence of this teaching. If we take the fundamental source, it is the mind of the speaker. If we include the derivative aspect, it is also the conscious mind of the listener that serves as the essence. Hence, the *Viṃśatikā* says: "Through the mutually influencing power of two consciousnesses, a determinate perception arises." That is, due to the distinctions in the consciousness of another continuum, distinctions arise in the consciousness of this continuum. They mutually serve as dominant conditions for each other.

**5. The Essence as Subsuming Phenomena within Suchness** The *Vimalakīrti Nirdeśa Sūtra* states: "All dharmas are suchness. All sages and worthies are also suchness," and so on. It also says: "The nature of words and letters, though devoid of words and letters, is liberation." Furthermore, it says: "The Dharma is not an object of seeing, hearing, sensing, or knowing," and similar statements in many places. Phenomena are like waves; their principle-nature is like water. Waves are not separate from water; all phenomenal dharmas are suchness. Therefore, the teaching takes **suchness alone** as its essence.

The above explanation of the essence proceeds from the derivative to the fundamental, from the shallow to the deep. It merely states the primary perspective without contradicting other meanings.

**Next, Clarifying the Nature**

This further involves three approaches: 1. The nature in terms of the Three Natures (*trisvabhāva*: parikalpita, paratantra, pariniṣpanna). 2. The nature in terms of being tainted (*sāsrava*) or untainted (*anāsrava*). 3. The nature in terms of the Three Moral Qualities (*tri-guṇa*: wholesome, unwholesome, indeterminate).

**1. The Nature in Terms of the Three Natures** * Subsuming phenomena within Suchness corresponds to the **Perfectly Accomplished Nature** (*pariniṣpanna-svabhāva*). * Subsuming dharmas within mind corresponds to the **Other-Dependent Nature** (*paratantra-svabhāva*). * The first two approaches (1 & 2 above) also pertain to the **Other-Dependent Nature**. * The third approach (3 above) pertains to all three natures. This is because, although the **Imagined Nature** (*parikalpita-svabhāva*) lacks real essence, it is still an object of expression.

**2. The Nature in Terms of Tainted/Untainted** Regarding the **substantial teaching** (*dravya-dharma*): * All teachings spoken by the Tathāgata are **untainted**. The statement that the fifteen sense spheres (*āyatana*) are tainted belongs to the Śrāvaka schools and is not the meaning of the Mahāyāna. In Mahāyāna, the Buddha's body, the eighteen sense spheres, etc., are all untainted.

Regarding teachings spoken or heard by **Tenth Ground Bodhisattvas, Śrāvakas, and Pratyekabuddhas**, distinctions must be made: * **Bodhisattvas**: Their eighth consciousness (*ālaya-vijñāna*) is still considered tainted. The sounds, etc., they manifest are also only tainted. However, when speaking or listening from an **untainted state of mind** (primarily involving the sixth and seventh consciousnesses), this **manifested teaching** (*ākāra-dharma*) is also purely untainted, because the perceiving subject (*dṛśya*) and perceived object (*dṛś*) share the same nature. * **Śrāvakas and Pratyekabuddhas**: Although they may have some untainted states during contemplation or in cessation (*nirodha-samāpatti*), these are minimal and not the norm. When they are actually speaking or listening to the Dharma, it is purely **tainted**. * Ordinary beings (*pṛthagjana*) can be understood accordingly.

**3. The Nature in Terms of the Three Moral Qualities** * What is manifested from an **untainted** mind is invariably **wholesome**. * What is manifested when speaking or listening from a **tainted** mind—the sounds, etc.—is purely **indeterminate** (*avyākṛta*), as it belongs to the realm of objective reality (*vastu-bhūmi*).

**Question:** The manifestations of the eighth consciousness can indeed be purely indeterminate. But what about manifestations from the six active consciousnesses (*ṣaḍ-vijñāna*) when they are in wholesome, unwholesome, or indeterminate states? **Answer:** The perceiving subject (*dṛśya*) may be wholesome, etc., but the manifested object (*dṛś*) is indeterminate. This is because it is accepted that the perceiver and perceived, though distinct, arise interdependently. Treatises state that form and sound are not inherently wholesome or unwholesome; they are provisionally labeled as such based on the mind that produces them.

**Question:** If sound is purely indeterminate, what about names, etc.? **Answer:** If considered in terms of **what they express**, they are provisionally associated with all three moral qualities. However, considered in terms of their **basis in sound**, they are also purely indeterminate.

**Question:** If so, why does Vasubandhu's treatise say, "My Dharma is wholesome, yours is merely indeterminate"? **Answer:** This is addressed to Śrāvaka teachers. In your system, the sphere of sound is tainted, so names are merely indeterminate. In our Mahāyāna system, the Buddha's sound is untainted, therefore it is purely wholesome.

**Third: Clarifying the Classification and Core Purpose**

First, we clarify the classification, then we explain the core purpose.

**Classification has five aspects:** 1. Classification by Canon 2. Classification by Division 3. Classification by Vehicle 4. Classification by Period 5. Classification by Assembly

**1. Classification by Canon** There are two canons: * The Śrāvaka Canon * The Bodhisattva Canon (The teachings for Pratyekabuddhas are few and are included within the Śrāvaka Canon.) This sūtra belongs to the Bodhisattva Canon because it contains the complete teachings for those with great capacity.

Alternatively, there are three canons: * Vinaya (Discipline) * Sūtra (Discourses) * Abhidharma (Higher Teachings) These respectively emphasize the training in morality, concentration, and wisdom, though each canon contains all three aspects to some degree. This sūtra belongs to the Sūtra Canon.

Furthermore, according to the twelve divisions of scripture, some sūtras containing discussion and analysis can be classified under all three canons, not just a single one.

**2. Classification by Division** The meaning of the twelve divisions is explained elsewhere. Here, we will list them and briefly relate them to this sūtra: 1. **Sūtra (Discourses):** Can be general (all twelve divisions) or specific (prose discourses summarizing key points). This sūtra fits both. 2. **Geya (Repetition in Verse):** Verses that reiterate what was said in prose. E.g., later in this sūtra: "If one sees me in form..." 3. **Vyākaraṇa (Predictions):** Has three aspects: predicting a great being's future Buddhahood; predicting a disciple's future rebirths; explaining the meaning of phenomena. This sūtra relates to the third aspect, though it discusses past Buddhas rather than making new predictions. 4. **Gāthā (Verses):** Teachings expressed solely in verse, suitable for recitation. The final verses of this sūtra are an example. 5. **Udāna (Inspired Utterances):** Teachings given spontaneously without request, to ensure the Dharma's longevity or express deep compassion. This sūtra has none. 6. **Nidāna (Causes and Conditions):** Arises from three situations: establishing a rule due to an offense; teaching due to an event; teaching in response to a request. This sūtra fits the third. 7. **Avadāna (Parables):** Using similes to clarify the teaching. E.g., the simile of space to illustrate the merit of generosity. 8. **Itivṛttaka (Past Stories of Disciples):** Narratives about past lives of disciples (other than the Buddha). This sūtra lacks these. 9. **Jātaka (Past Stories of the Buddha):** Narratives about the Buddha's past lives as a Bodhisattva. E.g., the story of the Patient Ascetic. 10. **Vaipulya (Expansive Teachings):** Has two aspects: teaching the Bodhisattva path; teachings that are vast, profound, and lofty. This sūtra possesses both. 11. **Adbhutadharma (Marvelous Phenomena):** Describing the common and uncommon qualities of the eight assemblies, or other supremely wondrous and astonishing dharmas. E.g., the teaching that sacrificing as many lives as sands in three Ganges Rivers cannot compare to faith in this sūtra. 12. **Upadeśa (Analytical Discourses):** Sūtras that involve detailed investigation and analysis. All definitive-meaning sūtras (*nītārtha*) fall into this category. Although this sūtra lacks explicit analytical passages, based on Vasubandhu's commentary, where questions and doubts arising from previous teachings are addressed and resolved through dialogue, it also qualifies as analytical.

Thus, this sūtra fits ten of the twelve divisions, lacking only *Udāna* and *Itivṛttaka*.

**3. Classification by Vehicle** Some teachings posit only **One Vehicle**, as the *Lotus Sūtra* says: "There is only the One Vehicle, not two, not three." Some posit **Two Vehicles** (superior and inferior). Some posit **Three Vehicles** (Śrāvaka, Pratyekabuddha, Bodhisattva), as the *Lotus Sūtra* also explains for those seeking the Śrāvaka path. Some even posit **Five Vehicles**, etc. This sūtra belongs to the **One Vehicle**, as stated later: "spoken for those who have set out on the Great Vehicle." The *Śrīmālā Sūtra* says the One Vehicle is the Great Vehicle. Among the two or three vehicles, it is the supreme vehicle, spoken "for those who have set out on the Most Supreme Vehicle."

**4. Classification by Period** Ancient masters established various divisions of teaching periods, but their numbers and justifications varied and lacked solid basis, as Master Cien (Kuiji) refuted in his *Fayuan Yilin*.

Here, we present the correct doctrine. Master Cien, based on the *Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra*, established **Three Periods of Teaching**: * **First Period:** In the Deer Park at Varanasi, the Buddha turned the Dharma Wheel of the Four Noble Truths *solely for those setting out on the Śrāvaka Vehicle*. This teaching, while profound, was *provisional, with a superior above it, and a basis for debate*. * **Second Period:** The Buddha turned the Dharma Wheel *solely for those setting out on the Great Vehicle*, teaching that all phenomena are without inherent nature, unborn, unceasing, originally peaceful, and of the nature of Suchness—but *in a concealed manner*. This teaching was also *provisional, with a superior above it, and a basis for debate*. * **Third Period:** The Buddha turned the Dharma Wheel *for all those setting out on any vehicle*, teaching that all phenomena are without inherent nature, unborn, unceasing, originally peaceful, and of the nature of Nirvāṇa—the nature of non-inherent nature—*in an explicit manner*. This teaching is *ultimate, without superior, and not a basis for debate*.

This aligns with the *Nirvāṇa Sūtra*'s simile of first prescribing milk, then prescribing total abstinence, then prescribing selective consumption. It also matches the *Golden Light Sūtra*'s three Dharma Wheels of Turning, Illuminating, and Upholding.

If we consider those of gradual disposition who progress from small to great, we can speak of three periods. The *Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra* speaks from this perspective. For those of sudden awakening who enter the great directly, there is no such temporal sequence. The periods are not about fixed years or months, but about the logical progression of meaning. Otherwise, if taken literally, the *Avataṃsaka Sūtra* (spoken first) would belong to the first period, and the *Bequeathed Teaching Sūtra* (spoken last) to the third, which is incorrect.

**Question:** Why then does the *Lotus Sūtra* only mention two periods? **Answer:** It contrasts the small and great vehicles, subsuming the second period under the latter, thus speaking of only before and after. In reality, there are three periods.

**This Sūtra's Classification:** For those of sudden disposition, it transcends temporal classification. For those of gradual disposition, it belongs to the **Second Period**. The first period taught only existence; this sūtra does not teach only existence, so it is not of that period. The third period explicitly teaches both emptiness and existence for all vehicles. This sūtra states it is spoken "solely for those who have set out on the Most Supreme Vehicle," thus placing it in the second period. Furthermore, Asaṅga's commentary explains passages about "not being frightened or terrified" in terms of the Three Natures of Non-Self, which represent the Buddha's intended meaning in teaching emptiness.

**Question:** The *Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra* establishes three periods but doesn't explicitly name the Perfection of Wisdom sūtras as the second period. How do we know? **Answer:** That sūtra says, "solely for those setting out on the Great Vehicle." This sūtra also says, "The Tathāgata has spoken this for those who have set out on the Great Vehicle... for those who have set out on the Most Supreme Vehicle." The wording is identical. Furthermore, what other sūtra group is spoken *solely* for those on the Great Vehicle in a concealed manner? Moreover, the *Great Perfection of Wisdom Sūtra* in several places records gods rejoicing and saying, "We now see the World-Honored One turning the second Dharma Wheel."

**Question:** According to the *Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra*, the second period is taught in a concealed manner. Does that make this sūtra provisional? Also, this sūtra says the merit of upholding, explaining, and practicing it is immeasurable and inconceivable. Yet the *Saṃdhinirmocana* says the merit from provisional teachings is like water in a cow's hoofprint compared to the ocean. If this sūtra is provisional, its merit should be inferior. **Answer:** Master Henan (Huiyuan) explains: The classification as provisional or ultimate is based on the *vehicle* it pertains to, not on whether it is explicit or concealed. Furthermore, from the perspective of gradual awakening and the concealed approach, it is provisional; from the perspective of sudden awakening, it is explicit. Moreover, this sūtra fully explains the five stages of practice; how can it be said to teach only emptiness?

**Commentary:** The *Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra* calls the second period "concealed" because, tailored for gradual practitioners, it predominantly teaches emptiness, often using veiled language. In truth, the Perfection of Wisdom also contains teachings on existence. How do we know? Based on the two commentaries (by Asaṅga and Vasubandhu) on this sūtra, which explain its meaning in terms of the Middle Way, free from both emptiness and existence, not one-sided emptiness. This will be clarified below. Furthermore, the *Mahāyāna-saṃgraha* and *Madhyāntavibhāga* cite the Perfection of Wisdom to prove that the Three Natures involve both existence and non-existence, not one-sided emptiness. How much more so does this sūtra, which says all Buddhas are born from it and attain the ultimate Dharma Body, free from all characteristics? How can this not be ultimate?

As for the *Saṃdhinirmocana*'s comparison of merit: If one clings to emptiness as the ultimate meaning while upholding and explaining it, the merit is inferior. If one understands the unity of emptiness and existence, free from characteristics, and upholds it accordingly, the merit equals that of the ultimate teachings. This point requires careful contemplation.

**5. Classification by Assembly** The *Great Perfection of Wisdom Sūtra* was spoken in **four places** across **sixteen assemblies**. * **Four Places:** 1) Vulture Peak, Rājagṛha; 2) Jetavana, Śrāvastī; 3) Palace of the Treasure of Maṇi Jewels, Paranirmitavaśavartin Heaven; 4) Side of the White Heron Pond in the Bamboo Grove, Rājagṛha. * **Sixteen Assemblies:** The first five are simply numbered. The 6th (Supreme King), 7th (Mañjuśrī), and 8th (Nāgaśrī) are named after the requestor. The last eight are named after their content: the 9th (The Diamond Cutter), the 10th (The Principle of the Way), and the next six named after the six perfections.

**This sūtra is the 9th Assembly**, spoken at Jetavana. According to the Sanskrit original, it has 300 verses and corresponds to the 577th fascicle of the large Chinese translation.

Ancient masters spoke of "Eight Perfection of Wisdom Sūtras" (Large, Small, *Fangguang*, *Guangzan*, *Daoxing*, *Supreme King*, *Mañjuśrī*, *Diamond*), but this was because they hadn't seen the complete collection in 600 fascicles. In reality, there is one great collection divided into sixteen assemblies. The so-called eight are mostly overlapping translations (e.g., *Fangguang* and *Guangzan* belong to the Large; *Daoxing* is the Small). Therefore, the "eight divisions" model is unreliable.

This sūtra, spoken amidst these assemblies, is the key to the Perfection of Wisdom and the core of the great collection. Its lines are intricate, its meaning profound and subtle. It encompasses the ultimate and conventional, includes practices and stages, dispels arrogance, removes all attachments, destroys characteristics and clinging, and represents the pinnacle of mind cultivation. It is supreme for averting calamities and accumulating blessings. Therefore, in India over twenty masters composed commentaries on it, and in this land its propagation is beyond count. Even praising it for eons or sacrificing one's body to protect it cannot repay its inconceivable power and immense kindness.

**Having clarified the classification, we now explain the core purpose.**

First, a general explanation, then a specific one.

**General Explanation of Purpose** Ancient masters of this land categorized all teachings into **Four Doctrinal Schools**: 1. **School of Establishing Nature:** Posits the five aggregates, sense spheres, and elements as having real substance. E.g., *Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra*, *Abhidharmakośa*. 2. **School of Negating Nature:** Negates the substantial nature of the aggregates, etc., stating phenomena have only characteristics. E.g., *Satyasiddhi-śāstra*. 3. **School of Negating Characteristics:** States all phenomena are not only without nature, but also without characteristics. E.g., the Perfection of Wisdom sūtras. 4. **School of Revealing Reality:** Explains the true principle of all phenomena, teaching emptiness or existence as appropriate. E.g., *Avataṃsaka Sūtra*, *Nirvāṇa Sūtra*.

According to this classification, this sūtra belongs to the **School of Negating Characteristics**. However, these four schools do not exhaust all doctrines. For example: * The Ekavyāvahārika (Sarvāstivāda sub-school) says all worldly and supramundane phenomena are mere names, without nature or characteristics. * The Prajñaptivāda says aggregates are real, but sense spheres and elements are conceptual. * The Lokottaravāda says worldly phenomena are unreal (illusory), but supramundane phenomena are real. Where do these fit among the four? Moreover, the twenty Hīnayāna schools have diverse tenets; how can they be confined to just "nature" and "characteristics"? Thus, the four-school classification is not definitive.

Other masters established **Three Doctrinal Schools**: 1. **Dharmalakṣaṇa (Characteristics of Dharmas) School:** Sūtras like *Saṃdhinirmocana*, *Buddhabhūmi* and treatises like *Yogācārabhūmi* belong here. They take the Three Natures as the framework for establishing all dharmas as ultimate. 2. **Negating Characteristics School:** Sūtras like the *Great Perfection of Wisdom* and treatises like *Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra*, *Mūlamadhyamaka-kārikā*, *Śata-śāstra* belong here. They take the ultimate truth as the standpoint to negate all dharmas as ultimate. 3. **Dharmatā (Nature of Dharmas) School:** Sūtras like *Avataṃsaka*, *Nirvāṇa*, *Laṅkāvatāra* and treatises like *Ratnagotravibhāga*, *Awakening of Faith* belong here. They take the Dharmatā/Tathāgatagarbha as the framework to harmonize all dharmas as ultimate.

They argue that the single flavor of truth cannot be revealed without words, yet words cannot fully express reality. Therefore, all teachings from Buddhas to ordinary people necessarily involve aspects of emptiness or existence, leading to these three distinctions.

This master's reputation is peerless, his insight transcendent, his learning vast across five vehicles, his understanding profound. He steers the boat of wisdom on the ocean of Dharma, his oar parting the waves; he wields the sword of discernment on the mountain of meaning, its frosty blade cutting jade. His judgment of these doctrinal schools is indeed a model to follow. However, there are points that are not entirely clear, which I shall humbly question.

**Questioning the Three-School Model:** 1. Although Dharma is beyond words and inherently without names or characteristics, we provisionally use designations. Do these designations point to the Dharma's essence? If not, how can the holy teachings be a reliable standard? They use terms like "aggregates" to negate a supreme Self, etc. 2. Ordinary people, blind without the sun of wisdom, speak without corresponding to reality and may fall into extremes. Buddhas, with their holy wisdom, directly realize the Dharma's essence and expound it without error, exactly as realized. When they speak of emptiness, it is truly empty; when they speak of existence, it is truly existent—in accord with the Middle Way. How can they be equated with ordinary people? If not, how could relying on their teachings generate correct understanding, give rise to true supreme wisdom, and lead to liberation? 3. If, because words don't fully express reality, all statements fall into extremes like emptiness or existence, then there should be 84,000 distinct schools, not just three. 4. Dividing teachings into three schools without scriptural authority is merely arbitrary judgment. 5. Saying the Dharmalakṣaṇa School affirms the dependent and perfected natures, while the Negating Characteristics School negates all three natures, and each claims to be ultimate, creates contradictions between teachings and principles, and violates the singular, ultimate Middle Way. How can we reconcile accepting that the Buddha taught three different "ultimates"? 6. According to the *Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra*, the Buddha himself explained that teachings on emptiness refer *only* to the imagined nature. How then can the Negating Characteristics School claim to negate all three natures? There are many other objections; these suffice.

We should understand that the *Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra*, proclaimed by the regent Maitreya, comprehensively explains *all* sūtras, not just the *Saṃdhinirmocana*, etc. Its opening verse says: "This treatise is supreme like a lotus, like a treasure trove, like the great ocean. It fully reveals the vast meaning of all vehicles, skillfully explaining their texts without omission." It also states its purpose: "Since beginningless time, sentient beings have been ignorant of, doubtful about, or holding wrong views and attachments regarding the middle reality of all dharmas... The Tathāgata appeared and, according to their capacities, skillfully taught various wonderful dharmas about the middle reality, so beings may know all dharmas: they are not as they seem because of emptiness, and not non-existent because of existence... understanding dharmas as neither empty nor existent,远离 wrong views and attachments, practicing to eliminate obstructions, and attaining the three enlightenments to realize the bliss of Nirvāṇa."

"After the Buddha's Nirvāṇa, demonic affairs arose, schools contended, and many clung to the view of existence. The Bodhisattva Nāgārjuna, having attained the first bhūmi (Joyful), collected the Mahāyāna teachings on signlessness

The Proponent of Emptiness says: "I also have scriptural authority to support what was previously stated, citing the Great Perfection of Wisdom Sutra and others as evidence."

The Proponent of Reason replies: "Scriptures contain both explicit and implicit meanings. You are in error because you contradict the explicit teaching. The *Samdhinirmocana Sutra* states that the second turning of the Dharma wheel was taught in a concealed manner, proclaiming the emptiness of all phenomena—this is not the ultimate explicit meaning. Furthermore, it says: 'I have already revealed that phenomena, arising, and ultimate truth are without inherent nature.' If one does not understand this hidden intent of the Buddha, one corrupts the true path and cannot proceed. Since the sutra itself declares that the teaching of phenomena being without inherent nature is a concealed teaching and not the ultimate explicit meaning, to now classify the teaching of emptiness as the first teaching is therefore erroneous."

Question: "Nagarjuna and Asanga both attained the stage of great joy and realized the nature of reality. Their wisdom and insight are no different. Why then do the two schools they represent teach differently?"

Answer: "In terms of ultimate truth, they are equal and without difference. The Buddha, according to the capacities of his listeners, taught in both explicit and implicit ways. The bodhisattvas did likewise: according to what their listeners were ready to hear, they propagated different teachings. Due to the tendency to cling to existence, Nagarjuna secretly propagated the teaching of emptiness. However, if one clings to emptiness, that too becomes a fault. Therefore, it is necessary to teach both 'neither existence nor emptiness,' transcending the two extremes and realizing the Middle Way, as explained in the *Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra* and other commentaries. Moreover, the Mahayana teaching of formless emptiness, based on the realm of true wisdom, negates all characteristics and secretly teaches that all is empty. The great bodhisattvas, addressing the disease of clinging to existence, propagated this hidden teaching—not because they did not realize the Middle Way. Later generations, failing to understand this, widely engaged in disputes. How could the great bodhisattvas be in contradiction?"

The above clarifies the schools. Both the Proponent of Emptiness and the Proponent of Reason propagate the Two Truths, and this sutra elucidates them. As stated in the *Treatise on Merit*, all teachings ultimately return to the Two Truths, interpreted through both schools. The wise should understand this thoroughly.

Now, to specify the central theme: The title indicates that *prajñā* (wisdom) is the theme. *Prajñā* has three aspects: ultimate reality (*dharmatā*), contemplative insight, and the words that express it. Master Xuanzang, based on various sutras and treatises, added two more: the object of wisdom and its associated factors. Thus, there are five kinds: 1. The essence of *prajñā* 2. The characteristics of *prajñā* 3. The cause of *prajñā* 4. The object of *prajñā* 5. The companions of *prajñā*

In terms of their nature and characteristics, all are called *prajñā*.

Some argue that this sutra takes contemplative insight as its theme because it speaks of 'cutting off.' As the great sutra says: Among the six perfections, the perfection of wisdom is like an island, a shore, a path, an eye, a torch, and so on. Therefore, it takes the aspect of wisdom as its theme—specifically, the non-conceptual wisdom, both fundamental and subsequent, that realizes the emptiness of persons and phenomena. Alternatively, it may also include preparatory practices, which is not contradictory, as the eighteen stages encompass both before and after attaining the stages of the path.

Others argue that the ultimate reality aspect of *prajñā* is also the theme of the sutra because it is the nature that cuts off. Ultimate truth is the foundation from which wisdom arises. The metaphor of gold and jewels also refers to the Tathagatagarbha. The sutra extensively clarifies the direct truth of no characteristics: the ultimate fruit, the Dharma body, is the object of the wisdom that realizes no characteristics.

The answers and debates vary, as explained in the commentary on the *Sutra on Purifying Karmic Obstructions*.

Question: Why are the other three—words, object, and companions—not taken as the main theme? Answer: They are not the primary focus of the sutra; they are secondary. These two—contemplative insight and ultimate reality—are fundamental, corresponding to the two aspects of a bodhisattva's nirvana. They encompass the five dharmas and include the three bodies of the Buddha. They are the foundation of merit, whether as the nature of the perceiver, the perceived, or their characteristics.

The third question is concluded.

**Regarding the suitability of the teaching for different capacities:** First, we distinguish the capacities of beings, then we discuss how the teaching is applied to them.

**First, on the differences in capacity:** The capacities of sentient beings are not uniform. There is debate about whether there is one vehicle or five distinct natures. Here, we will briefly outline three main viewpoints found in the scriptures.

**The First Viewpoint: All beings possess Buddha-nature.** This view holds that all sentient beings definitively have Buddha-nature. There are no beings with a fixed nature as a Śrāvaka (voice-hearer), Pratyekabuddha (solitary realizer), or those devoid of Buddha-nature.

* **Support from the Nirvāṇa Sūtra (Chapter 27):** It states decisively: "All sentient beings possess Buddha-nature." It also says: "All sentient beings possess mind. Whoever possesses mind will ultimately attain Anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi (supreme perfect enlightenment). Therefore, I say all sentient beings possess Buddha-nature." * **Support from the Nirvāṇa Sūtra (Chapter 37):** It distinguishes Buddha-nature from non-Buddha-nature: "Non-Buddha-nature refers to insentient things like walls, tiles, and stones. Apart from such insentient things, that is called Buddha-nature." Based on this text, Buddha-nature is not merely a principle. The five aggregates of sentient beings are not excluded. It is also not the case that only a part, separate from the insentient, is Buddha-nature. How could one speak of Buddha-nature by referring to non-Buddha-nature? That would be like speaking of the unconditioned by separating it from the conditioned—does the unconditioned contain the conditioned? * **Further from the Nirvāṇa Sūtra:** "All sentient beings possess three kinds of concentration: superior, middling, and inferior. The superior is Buddha-nature, the middling is the first dhyāna, the inferior is the great earth." Since the middling and inferior concentrations are not partial but apply to all, and the text uses the same phrasing, the superior concentration (Buddha-nature) must also apply to all. Since it is called a 'concentration,' it is not merely a principle; it is the *Śūraṅgama-samādhi* (Heroic March Samadhi) that is Buddha-nature. * **Support from the Lotus Sūtra:** "The Buddhas appear in the world for one great causal purpose: to enable sentient beings to open the Buddha's knowledge and vision, to attain purity..." and "In the Buddha lands of the ten directions, there is only the One Vehicle, not two, not three, except as expedient means taught by the Buddha, using provisional names to guide sentient beings." * **Support from the *Buddha-nature Treatise*:** "The Suchness of the two emptinesses (of self and dharmas) is called the 'attainable cause' because it is the cause for attaining Buddhahood." Therefore, if there is the principle-nature, there must certainly be the practice and the fruit. Since the principle exists in all, the practice and fruit cannot be partial. * **Objection and Response:** Some might argue that when the Lotus Sūtra says Śrāvakas who have not attained Nirvāṇa will all become Buddhas, it refers only to indeterminate Śrāvakas, not those with a fixed nature. This is not correct. Even indeterminate ones become Buddhas according to the teaching. If the present teaching were the same as the initial turning of the Dharma wheel, why did the Buddha require earnest requests three times? Why did those with overweening pride become alarmed and fearful, and why did Śāriputra and others suspect the Buddha was a demon? Precisely because the present and past teachings are vastly different, such doubts and slanders arose. The sūtra says: "The reason I had not spoken [this] before was that the time was not right. Now is precisely the time to decisively teach the Great Vehicle." This shows the present teaching is not the former one.

**The Second Viewpoint: There are beings with and without the seed of Buddhahood.** This view holds that there are five distinct natures: 1) Śrāvaka nature, 2) Pratyekabuddha nature, 3) Tathāgata (Buddha) nature, 4) Indeterminate nature, and 5) Seedless nature (lacking the seed for enlightenment).

* **Evidence for the Seedless Nature:** * The *Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra* (in both four and eight scroll versions) states that Icchantikas (those of great compassion and those cut off from good) will ultimately not attain perfect enlightenment. If all beings had the nature, they would all eventually achieve Buddhahood. How then could the Icchantikas of great compassion ultimately not do so? * The *Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra* says beings without good friends and proper hearing are matured through human and heavenly roots of goodness. * The *Saddharma-smṛtyupasthāna Sūtra* states that seedless people, due to lacking the seed, cannot attain supreme enlightenment even if they arouse the mind and diligently practice. * The *Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra* and *Mahāyāna-saṃgraha* agree. * The Nirvāṇa Sūtra's analogy of three kinds of sick people: the third kind will not recover whether they meet a good doctor or not. If they had the nature, why would they not recover? * The analogy of the seven people in the Ganges: the first, who is always submerged, represents the seedless one. * The *Mahāyāna-sūtrālaṅkāra* (Chapter 1) says there are two kinds of Icchantikas: temporary and ultimate. The ultimate ones have no cause for Nirvāṇa; they lack the nature for Prajñā and Nirvāṇa, seeking only birth and death, not delighting in Nirvāṇa. * **Evidence for Fixed Natures:** * The *Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra* (Scroll 593) has the Bodhisattva Suvikrāntavikrāmin request the Buddha to teach the Tathāgata's realm and wisdom. It states that those with a fixed Śrāvaka nature, upon hearing this, can quickly realize their own fruit; those with a fixed Pratyekabuddha nature can quickly attain liberation in their own vehicle; and those with an indeterminate nature among the three vehicles can quickly realize the mind of supreme perfect enlightenment. Since indeterminate ones are mentioned separately, it clearly implies there are fixed Śrāvakas. * The *Yogācārabhūma-śāstra* (Scroll 76) and the *Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra* (Chapter 2) speak of Śrāvakas who are fixed on quietude. * The *Avataṃsaka Sūtra* (Chapter 40) mentions fixed-nature Pratyekabuddhas. * The *Mahāyāna-sūtrālaṅkāra* (Chapter 1) agrees. * The Nirvāṇa Sūtra (Chapter 30) says: "In the sūtras, I taught the bhikṣus the One Vehicle, the One Path, the One Practice, the One Condition... Yet my disciples, hearing this, did not understand my meaning and proclaimed that the Tathāgata said Stream-enterers up to Arhats can all become Buddhas." If all could become Buddhas, there would be no fixed natures. If they understood the Buddha's intent, why would this need to be said? * **Objection and Reconciliation:** How then does the Lotus Sūtra exclusively teach the One Vehicle as ultimate? According to the *Mahāyāna-saṃgraha*, the *Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra's* teaching is reconciled with the One Vehicle through ten meanings. In general, based on sūtras and śāstras: * **Buddha-nature has three aspects:** 1) Principle-nature (Suchness), 2) Practice-nature (undefiled seeds), 3) Hidden-nature (within afflictions). * **Śrāvakas are of four kinds:** 1) Manifested by transformation, 2) Those who regress from the Bodhi-mind, 3) Those with overweening pride, 4) Those fixed on quietude. * **Icchantikas are of three kinds:** 1) The great compassion Icchantika, 2) The severed-good Icchantika, 3) The seedless Icchantika. Both viewpoints cited above have clear scriptural support. The explanations for resolving difficulties and reconciling contradictions should each be studied in detail, as recorded elsewhere. Those fond of extensive discussion and diligent in teaching the Dharma should elaborate on them.

**The Third Viewpoint: The matter of possessing or lacking the seed is the Tathāgata's secret realm.** This view holds that the teachings on this are scattered throughout the sūtras, and the Buddha did not speak definitively. How can the previous interpretations presume to settle what is right or wrong? This is within the domain of the Buddha's power of knowing the various dispositions of beings. Only a Buddha together with a Buddha can fully comprehend it.

* **Support from the Nirvāṇa Sūtra (Chapter 17):** "The teaching of the Three Vehicles is spoken of as the One Vehicle. The teaching of the One Vehicle is, according to what is appropriate, spoken of as three... The Tathāgata, clearly seeing the faculties of beings, is never false. Although not false, if knowing that beings can gain benefit from the Dharma through a false statement, he speaks it as an expedient means. This is the profound realm of the Buddhas, not known by the Two Vehicles." Based on this text, how can ordinary people presumptuously debate it? * **Further Support (Chapter 34):** "Good man, the Tathāgata, for the sake of beings, speaks the extensive within the brief and the brief within the extensive... Therefore, adapting to the person, the intention, and the time, he is called the Tathāgata who knows the powers of the faculties. Good man, if I were to give a definitive teaching on such meanings, I could not be called the Tathāgata possessing the power of knowing faculties." * **(Chapter 35):** "Good man, such disputes are the Buddha's realm, not what Śrāvakas or Pratyekabuddhas know. If a person harbors doubt about this, it can still destroy afflictions as massive as Mount Sumeru. But if regarding this one gives a definitive judgment, that is called attachment... Good man, such attachment is not good. Why? Because it cannot destroy the net of doubts." When Kāśyapa said, "World-Honored One, such a person originally had no doubt, why say he does not destroy the net of doubts?" The Buddha replied, "Good man, his having no doubt is itself doubt." * **(Chapter 36):** "Good man, although I have said all sentient beings possess Buddha-nature, beings do not understand such words spoken by the Buddha according to his own intention. Good man, such words cannot be known even by a Bodhisattva in his last body, let alone the Two Vehicles or other Bodhisattvas." It further states: "If anyone says all sentient beings definitely have Buddha-nature or definitely do not have Buddha-nature, such a person slanders the Buddha, Dharma, and Saṅgha."

Based on these texts, we should ascribe the accomplishment to the Buddha and respectfully present the various interpretations. One may, according to one's own inclination, freely accept or reject them, as both have supporting teachings and reasoning. One should not give rise to a grasping mind or forcefully generate biased views, claiming they alone accord with the Buddha's words—that is not correct. However, one should fully present the teachings and reasoning of each school so that learners know their sources.

**Question:** If one principle is superior, should not all be shown that one? When expounding the treasury of teachings, one must point to a definitive conclusion. If one merely harmonizes and gives an indeterminate explanation, what will later learners rely upon? **Answer:** Some meanings can be determined, others cannot. Where the meaning is not definitively established, the principle allows for multiple interpretations. How can one insist on a single definitive explanation? Even the Buddha did not give a definitive [universal] teaching—who dares to do so?

**Question:** That it is a secret difficult to know is as you say. But the beings of this land delight in hearing about Buddha-nature. Why did the Tathāgata not give a definitive teaching? **Answer:** Who says they always delight in hearing it exists? Beings are of two kinds: 1) Those who, hearing of Buddha-nature, rejoice, having a basis, and advance courageously. If they heard there is no nature, having nothing to rely on, they would cease their advancing mind. 2) Those who, hearing some lack the nature, fear falling into that category and increase their diligent practice. If they heard all have it, relying on this Buddha-nature, they might instead become lazy. Because the faculties differ, the teaching is not fixed. One should simply practice diligently, accumulate conduct and vows, and when one meets the golden-faced one face-to-face, one will know for oneself.

**Having explained the differences in capacity, we now discuss applying the teaching:** If one follows the first viewpoint, there is no further discussion. For those holding the five-natures view, one must analyze and select.

* **Regarding the primary recipients:** They are exclusively those of the superior vehicle. The sūtra says, "It is taught for those who have set out on the Great Vehicle." Another sūtra says, "It is taught for Bodhisattvas, to practice the six pāramitās and attain omniscient wisdom." * **Regarding secondary recipients:** It extends to the Two Vehicles and even those without the nature. The sūtra below addresses the fourfold assembly and the eight kinds of beings, without exclusion. The *Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra* says, "The Prajñāpāramitā can establish the grounds of Śrāvakas and Pratyekabuddhas." The previously cited passage with Suvikrāntavikrāmin also shows it applies to the Two Vehicles. This sūtra arises from the Bodhisattva's vast mind, vowing to enable all beings of the three realms and four modes of birth to attain extinction [of suffering].

**[The text then shifts to explaining the sūtra's title, beginning a new section.]**

**Explaining the Title:** The Qin, Wei, and Liang dynasty translations are all titled *Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā* (Diamond Prajñāpāramitā). The Tang and Zhou dynasty translations both call it *The Sūtra on the Perfection of Wisdom that Cuts Like a Diamond*. The Sui dynasty translation, following its commentary, is named *The Diamond Cutter*. The first three are abbreviated, the latter three are complete. The first titles highlight the essence and function by naming the metaphor (Diamond). The latter titles clearly show both essence and function, also stating the cause of cutting. Though varying in brevity, their meaning does not conflict.

**First, separate explanations:** * **Vajra (Sanskrit: Vajra):** Translated as "Diamond." The most supreme among gems. Its types are many. The *Abhidharma-kośa* says, "Śakra has a gem called Vajra, not seen by other beings." Paramārtha's commentary says there are six kinds of gems all called Vajra: 1) Blue—can eliminate all disasters. 2) Yellow—can produce various things according to people's needs. 3) Red—can enable people to travel in the sky. 4) White—can produce water and purify turbid water. 5) Color of space—can produce fire. 6) Green—can neutralize poisons. This explains the metaphorical substance.

**Next, explaining its symbolic function:** First according to various teachings, then according to this commentary's treatise. * **According to various teachings:** Like the Nirvāṇa Sūtra (Ch. 24) extensively praising the Vajra Samādhi: "Just as a diamond shatters whatever it strikes, yet the diamond itself is undamaged." Also: "As among gems, the diamond is supreme." * **According to Vasubandhu's commentary on the *Mahāyāna-saṃgraha*:** The Vajra is used as a metaphor with four meanings: 1) Can destroy afflictions. 2) Can lead to inexhaustible merits. 3) Solid, indestructible. 4) Functionally penetrates all dharmas. Since the concentration is like this, the wisdom is likewise. * **According to the *Abhidharma-samuccaya* (Ch. 12):** Explaining Vajra Samādhi with four meanings: 1) Uninterrupted—not interrupted by worldly activities. 2) Firm—can destroy all obstacles, not destroyed by them. 3) Of one taste—nature of non-discrimination, purely of one taste. 4) All-pervading—takes the universal characteristic, True Suchness, as its object. The Vajra also has four [corresponding] qualities: 1) Its substance has no gaps, not mixed with sand or stone. 2) Knowable. 3) Uniform, unchanging, non-different. 4) Pervades the world, like the Vajra Mountain or a Vajra scepter.

**Synthesizing the texts, the Vajra has ten meanings:** 1) Most supreme. 2) Difficult to see. 3) Eliminates disasters. 4) Solid. 5) Responds to seeking. 6) Can lead. 7) Functional. 8) Uninterrupted. 9) Of one taste. 10) All-pervading. The meaning of this sūtra's text also has ten aspects corresponding to these metaphors: It is the supreme, foremost, rare Dharma; its meaning and karmic reward are inconceivable; it destroys sins, obstructions, and afflictions; it breaks through solid attachments, is not broken by them; it benefits beings and adorns lands to attain Bodhi; it gives birth to all Buddhas, gathering wholesome dharmas; it penetrates selflessness, purifying knowledge and vision; it is not grasped by a mind abiding in characteristics; all dharmas are Suchness, essence is unconditioned; its merit and wisdom are like space, inconceivable. Matching the ten metaphors accordingly. Although this meaning is complete, it is not the original intent of the commentary.

**The original commentary gives four meanings:** 1) Subtle. 2) Rare. 3) Able to cut. 4) Resemblance. The first three are common meanings—contemplative wisdom and True Reality are found throughout the teachings. The last one is unique—the wisdom of letters (textual prajñā) is exclusive to this sūtra.

The commentary first states: "‘Vajracchedikā’ (Diamond Cutter)—this name has two applicable meanings. It