大智度論 信謗品之上Dazhidulun — Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa · Faith and Slander, Part 1 of 2

Faith and Slander, First Part: Where One Who Has Faith in and Understands Prajñā Comes From; Prajñā Is Unheard and Unseen; the Heavy Sin of Breaking the Dharma in Disparaging and Slandering Prajñā

What Is Being Asked

As this unit opens, what Śāriputra asks is a question about a 「人」 tr. "person": the bodhisattva who can have faith in and understand this deep prajñā—what, in the end, is his background? Dying in what place does he come to be born here? How long ago did he arouse the mind? To how many buddhas has he made offerings? Beneath this question lies wonder: prajñā is deep and subtle, hard even to hear, how much more to practise; one who can have faith in and understand it is surely no ordinary person. The Buddha’s answer gives this person’s background great weight—he has made offerings to the buddhas of the ten directions, aroused the mind immeasurable asaṃkhyeya kalpas ago, and from his first arousing of the mind has constantly practised the six perfections—faith in and understanding of prajñā is not a moment’s cleverness but the fruit of provisions gathered over a long time. Then Subhūti asks from the other end: can this prajñā be heard, can it be seen? The Buddha answers that it is unheard and unseen, 「諸法鈍故」 tr. "because dharmas are dull". And so this unit sets up two lines, one positive and one negative: on the positive side, what kind of person can practise deep prajñā—one who has first aroused intent and has the power of skilful means; on the negative side, what kind of person disparages and slanders prajñā—one who has long practised the six perfections but always with a mind of something to be attained, who abandoned it in a former life and abandons it again in this life, sowing the karma of delusion over and over, until at last he disparages prajñā, gives rise to the karma of breaking the Dharma, falls into the great hells, passes on through the ten directions, and when the sin has thinned and he obtains a human body is still born blind, without a tongue, without ears, without hands. Śāriputra brings up the five heinous sins for comparison, and the Buddha rules: 「不應言相似」 tr. "it should not be said to be like them"—the five heinous sins only destroy the fleshly body, whereas to disparage prajñā is to disparage that from which the omniscience of the buddhas of the three times comes forth. At the end the Buddha is unwilling to tell the size of the body that one who breaks the Dharma receives, fearing that those with faith would vomit blood from grief and dread and that those without faith would add to their heavy sin; Śāriputra asks him to make it a bright warning for the future age, and it comes to rest in a single vow: 「寧失身命，終不破法」 tr. "I would rather lose body and life than ever break the Dharma". The results of the two roads of faith and slander set face to face—this is exactly what the two words of the chapter’s title, 「信謗」 tr. "faith and slander", stand upon.

Passage by Passage

1. Śāriputra asks about the background of one who has faith in and understands prajñā. As the unit opens Śāriputra asks the Buddha: if there is a bodhisattva-mahāsattva who has faith in and understands this prajñāpāramitā, 「從何處終，來生是間」 tr. "dying in what place does he come to be born here"? How long has it been since he aroused the mind of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, unsurpassed, right, and complete awakening? To how many buddhas has he made offerings? How long has he practised the six perfections, that he can understand the meaning of deep prajñā in accordance with it? This question treats 「信解」 tr. "faith and understanding" as a rare thing that needs explaining—it does not ask what prajñā is, but who the person who has faith in prajñā is and where he has come from. To ask about the person is to ask about the cause: a mind that can have faith must have provisions from which it has come, and this is the starting point of the positive line of the whole unit.

2. The Buddha answers—offerings to the buddhas of the ten directions, arousing the mind over immeasurable kalpas, constantly practising the six perfections. The Buddha answers: this bodhisattva has made offerings to the buddhas of the ten directions and comes to be born here; since he aroused the mind, immeasurable and boundless asaṃkhyeya hundreds of thousands of myriads of koṭi of kalpas have passed; from his first arousing of the mind he has constantly practised the six perfections of dāna, śīla, kṣānti, vīrya, dhyāna, and prajñā; he has made offerings to immeasurable, boundless, inconceivable asaṃkhyeya buddhas. Three sentences answer three questions, and every sentence speaks of the long reach of time: the place he comes from is the presence of the buddhas of the ten directions, the time is immeasurable asaṃkhyeya kalpas, the practice is 「常行」 tr. "constant practice" without break from the first arousing of the mind. The threshold of faith in and understanding of prajñā is laid out without the least ambiguity—this is a capacity walked out step by step on the stage of provisions, not a chance gift of wisdom carried over from past lives.

3. Seeing and hearing prajñā is like seeing the Buddha and hearing the Dharma—because of the signless, the non-dual, and nothing to be attained. The Buddha says further: if this bodhisattva sees or hears prajñāpāramitā, he at once thinks 「我見佛，從佛聞法」 tr. "I see the Buddha, and from the Buddha I hear the Dharma"; he can understand the meaning of deep prajñā in accordance with it, 「以無相、無二、無所得故」 tr. "because of the signless, the non-dual, and nothing to be attained". The first half of the sentence is the utmost of the faithful mind—to see the scroll is the same as seeing the Buddha, to read the text of the sūtra is the same as hearing it in person; the second half is the guiding principle of understanding and wisdom—following the deep meaning does not come from wide learning, but from the three seals of the signless, the non-dual, and nothing to be attained. Faith at its utmost and understanding at its deepest here become one person: precisely because his mind grasps nothing, he can see the Dharma body directly within the prajñā of words and letters. Among the three seals, the signless blocks grasping at marks, the non-dual blocks the opposition of subject and object, and nothing to be attained blocks holding fast within the mind—later the treatise-author explains these three marks in their own order; here their general outline is first set up.

4. Prajñā is unheard and unseen, because dharmas are dull. Subhūti asks: can prajñā be heard, can it be seen? The Buddha answers: prajñā 「無有聞者、無有見者」 tr. "has no hearer and has no seer"; it is unheard and unseen, 「諸法鈍故」 tr. "because dharmas are dull"; and he carries this statement through the six perfections, inner emptiness and so on up to the emptiness of non-existent and existent dharmas, the four foundations of mindfulness and so on up to the eight limbs of the noble path, the ten powers and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas, the Buddha and the Buddha’s path, saying of each one that it is unheard and unseen. ‘Dull’ means without knowing, without awareness, not giving rise to discrimination: in the real mark of all dharmas there is no opposition of subject and object, and so no hearer or seer can be set up. This question and answer stands as the other face of the preceding passage’s 「見經卷如見佛」 tr. "seeing the scroll is like seeing the Buddha", and it is precisely the point of doubt that the treatise-author will reconcile below.

5. The mark of a bodhisattva of first-aroused intent who practises deep prajñā. Subhūti asks how long one must walk the Buddha’s path to be able to practise deep prajñā, and the Buddha answers that it must be told case by case: there are bodhisattvas who, from their first arousing of intent, practise deep prajñā and the six perfections, 「以方便力故」 tr. "because of the power of skilful means"; toward all dharmas they destroy nothing, and they do not see any dharma as without benefit; they never depart from the six perfections or from the buddhas; they go from one buddha-world to another buddha-world, and whenever they wish to make offerings to the buddhas with their roots of goodness they obtain it at will; they are never born in a woman’s womb, never part from supernormal powers, never give rise to afflictions or to the mind of śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas; they bring beings to maturity and purify buddha-worlds. From this one sees that whether one can practise does not depend on how long ago or how recently one aroused the mind, but on the power of skilful means—practising every practice while the mind does not cling: this is the summit of the positive line.

6. Those who practise the six perfections with something to be attained abandon it and leave when they hear deep prajñā. The negative line begins here: there are bodhisattvas who have seen many buddhas, immeasurable hundreds of thousands of myriads of koṭi, and in the presence of those buddhas have practised giving, morality, patience, vigour, one-pointedness, and wisdom, 「皆以有所得故」 tr. "all with something to be attained"; hearing deep prajñā expounded, they rise from the assembly and leave, without reverence for deep prajñā or for the buddhas. In a former life they heard it, abandoned it, and left; in this life they hear it and again abandon it and leave, 「身心不和」 tr. "body and mind not in harmony", sowing the karma of the causes and conditions of delusion. The crux lies in the three words 「有所得」 tr. "with something to be attained": the outward practice of the six perfections is entirely the same, yet the difference between grasping at marks and being apart from marks makes one and the same practice lead in two directions—making offerings to countless buddhas and yet it becomes a cause of slandering the Dharma; the warning in this runs very deep.

7. To disparage prajñā is to disparage the omniscience of the buddhas of the three times; giving rise to the karma of breaking the Dharma, one falls into the great hells. Because of the sin of sowing the causes and conditions of delusion, on hearing deep prajñā expounded one disparages it; to disparage prajñā is to disparage the omniscience and the omniscience of all kinds of the buddhas of the past, the future, and the present—prajñā is that from which the wisdom of the buddhas comes forth, and to slander the source is to slander everything that flows from it. Disparaging the omniscience of the buddhas of the three times, one 「起破法業」 tr. "gives rise to the karma of breaking the Dharma", and because its causes and conditions gather, for immeasurable hundreds of thousands of myriads of koṭi of years one falls into the great hells. The sūtra lays out the gradations of the sin clearly: the reason the verbal karma of disparagement and slander reaches such a sin lies not in the words themselves, but in the fact that what it disparages is the mother of the wisdom of the buddhas of the three times. This meaning is startling; the sūtra speaks it as it is, and the reader too should receive it as it is.

8. Passing through the hells and the animal realm of the ten directions; when the sin thins and a human body is obtained, the result is a maimed one. One who breaks the Dharma goes from one great hell to another great hell; when the fire-kalpa arises he is moved to a great hell in another region, passing through all ten directions, and because the causes and conditions of the karma of breaking the Dharma are not yet exhausted he comes back here again, round and round without end; the sufferings undergone in the animal realm are as told of the hells. As the heavy sin gradually thins, he may obtain a human body, 「生盲人家，生旃陀羅家，生除廁、擔死人種種下賤家」 tr. "born into a family of the blind, born into a family of caṇḍālas, born into families that clear latrines or carry corpses, all manner of low and base families"; either without eyes, or with one eye, or with eyes gone blind; either without a tongue, without ears, without hands; in the place where he is born there is no Buddha, no Dharma, no disciple of the Buddha. The length of the sin’s retribution and the maiming of the body received both come 「種破法業，積集厚重具足故」 tr. "because he has sown the karma of breaking the Dharma, and it has gathered, heavy and thick, and complete"—karma gathers of itself and the result completes itself; there is no official who punishes him.

9. Are the five heinous sins like breaking the Dharma?—It should not be said that they are alike. Śāriputra asks: are the five heinous sins like breaking the Dharma? The Buddha answers: 「不應言相似。」 tr. "It should not be said that they are alike." The five heinous sins—killing one’s father, killing one’s mother, killing an arhat, drawing blood from the Buddha’s body, and breaking the Saṅgha—are the gravest sins in the teaching of the śrāvakas, and lead to a fall into the Avīci hell; Śāriputra brings them up for comparison as the extreme of sin, yet the Buddha rules outright that one cannot even call them alike. This ruling is the cutting edge of this unit: the weight of a sin is not settled by the ferocity of the outward act, but by the depth and breadth of the Dharma that is destroyed. What the five heinous sins destroy is a matter of one body or one assembly; what slandering the Dharma destroys is that from which all the wisdom of the buddhas comes forth—as for why they are not alike, the sūtra first sets out a sixfold loss of both self and others, and the treatise then unfolds it in two layers, with the simile of parents’ love for their child and the distinction of the fleshly body and the Dharma body; the reader should look at it together with what follows below.

10. Disparaging it oneself and teaching others to disparage it—the sixfold loss of both self and others. The Buddha gives the reason why they are not alike: one who disparages and has no faith in deep prajñā says 「不應學是法，是非法、非善、非佛教，諸佛不說是語」 tr. "this dharma should not be studied; this is not the Dharma, not wholesome, not the Buddha’s teaching; the buddhas do not speak these words"—this person disparages prajñā himself and also teaches others to disparage it; he ruins his own body and also ruins the bodies of others; he drinks poison himself and kills his own body, and also makes others drink poison; he loses his own body and also loses the bodies of others; he himself does not know and has no faith, and also teaches others so that they have no faith and do not know. The sin of the five heinous sins stops at what one body commits; the sin of slandering the Dharma is a chain linking self and others: once the words of slander are out, they become a condition for others’ lack of faith; the poison is not only drunk by oneself, but passed on to be drunk by one after another—the contagiousness of the sin is exactly where it exceeds the five heinous sins.

11. One who defiles the Dharma falls into a nature of decline, turbidity, and blackness—not even hearing his name is allowed. The Buddha says: such a person—「我不聽聞其名字，何況眼見」 tr. "I do not allow even his name to be heard, how much less to see him with the eyes"! Know that such a person is called one who defiles the Dharma, 「為墮衰濁黑性」 tr. "he has fallen into a nature of decline, turbidity, and blackness"; those who listen to his words and have faith in what he says also undergo such suffering. The Buddha’s not allowing his name to be heard is not hatred of the person; it makes clear how dreadful his dharma is: what one who defiles the Dharma defiles is the Dharma on which the wisdom-life of beings relies, and to draw near to him is to be stained. 「若人破般若波羅蜜，當知是名為破法人」 tr. "If someone breaks prajñāpāramitā, know that he is called one who breaks the Dharma"—the name ‘breaking the Dharma’ does not depend on outward acts such as burning sūtras or destroying images; it depends on disparaging and slandering without faith and teaching others to disparage and slander; this definition must be kept in mind. Decline is the mark of wearing away, turbidity is the mark of obscuring and confusion, blackness is a nature formed by the accumulation of what is unwholesome; the treatise-author gives a proper explanation of each of the three words below, and here the sūtra first marks them with a general name.

12. The Buddha does not tell the size of the body received—fearing that those with faith would grieve and dread, and those without faith would add to their sin. Śāriputra asks the size of the body that one who breaks the Dharma receives, and the Buddha is unwilling to tell: if one who breaks the Dharma heard the size of the body he receives, 「便當吐熱血，若死、若近死苦」 tr. "he would at once vomit hot blood, and either die or suffer a pain close to death"; hearing that such a body carries such heavy sin, he would grieve greatly, 「如箭入心，漸漸乾枯」 tr. "as if an arrow had entered the heart, gradually withering away". The Buddha’s not telling is itself a teaching of the Dharma: if the weight of the result is such that merely hearing it could cause death, then what it actually is can be known. One who breaks the Dharma, thinking to himself that because of the sin of breaking the Dharma he obtains such a great, ugly body and undergoes such immeasurable suffering, grieves and withers—this thought itself is already a portion of the retribution. Here too one sees the sense of measure in teaching the Dharma: where the words can benefit, they are spoken; where the words would only add grief and dread, or the sin of lack of faith, they stop—compassion does not lie in saying everything.

13. Making a bright warning for the future age. Śāriputra will not let it rest: may the Buddha tell it, 「為未來世作明誡」 tr. "to make a bright warning for the future age", so that people know that because the karma of breaking the Dharma gathers one obtains a great, ugly body and undergoes great suffering. The Buddha grants half of it: if people of later ages hear that the karma of breaking the Dharma has gathered, heavy and thick, and complete, and that one undergoes long, long, immeasurable suffering in the great hells, then when they hear of this long, long, immeasurable suffering, it is 「足為未來世作明誡」 tr. "enough to make a bright warning for the future age". The Buddha still does not tell the size of the body, but allows only the long duration of the suffering to serve as the warning—the use of a bright warning lies not in lurid detail but in the certainty of cause and effect. This passage is also this chapter’s own note on why it speaks of the heavy sin of slandering the Dharma: it is spoken not to threaten, but to warn.

14. I would rather lose body and life than ever break the Dharma. Śāriputra finally declares: white and pure good men and good women, hearing this Dharma, have enough to take as a support—「寧失身命，終不破法」 tr. "they would rather lose body and life than ever break the Dharma", thinking to themselves that if they broke the Dharma they would undergo such suffering. This is the closing sentence of the sūtra text of the First Part: what arises on hearing the retribution for slandering the Dharma is not paralysing fear but a vow—body and life may be lost, the Dharma may not be broken. The treatise-author explains the word 「依止」 tr. "support" below: hearing of this suffering, one no longer dares to do it. To revere cause and effect and so to protect the Dharma is precisely the right response of a white and pure nature after hearing the warning—the same passage on retribution is an indictment for the slanderer and a protective charm for the white and pure; the sūtra closes with this vow, showing that the landing point the bright warning looks for lies not in fear but in vow.

15. The treatise explains the occasion of the question—knowing the noble Dharma before one is noble. The treatise-author explains why Śāriputra put the question: prajñā is deep and subtle, 「聞者尚難，何況能行」 tr. "hard even for those who hear it, how much more for those who can practise it", and so one who has faith in and understands prajñā is called rare. Śāriputra already has an inference in his mind: this person should have come, at death, from a good world, and should not be one who has newly aroused intent, made few offerings to buddhas, and practised the six perfections little—「必是大德人，未聖而能知聖法故」 tr. "he must be a person of great virtue, because though not yet noble he can know the noble Dharma". The sentence about knowing the noble Dharma before one is noble is the eye of the question: that someone on the stage of the ordinary person can have faith in and understand the realm of noble wisdom—this itself needs explaining, and from it the four causes and conditions of the Buddha’s answer are drawn out. Within the wonder of the question the direction of the answer is already contained.

16. Understanding the meaning in accordance with it—not grasping at marks, not being attached to emptiness. The treatise-author explains 「能隨順解深般若波羅蜜義」 tr. "can understand the meaning of deep prajñāpāramitā in accordance with it": this bodhisattva, toward all dharmas, is 「不取相、不著空，行空行，和合五波羅蜜行般若波羅蜜；用大慈悲心，為一切眾生行般若波羅蜜故」 tr. "not grasping at marks, not attached to emptiness, practising the practice of emptiness, bringing together the five pāramitās to practise prajñāpāramitā; because, with a mind of great kindness and compassion, he practises prajñāpāramitā for the sake of all beings". The four phrases are a complete definition of understanding in accordance: because he does not grasp at marks he does not fall to the extreme of existence; because he is not attached to emptiness he does not fall to the extreme of emptiness; because he brings together the five perfections, the wisdom of emptiness does not go alone; because of the mind of great kindness and compassion, the wisdom that delivers oneself is itself the practice that delivers others. The words ‘in accordance’ can be understood from this—following the mark of prajñā in practice, neither adding to it nor taking from it by one’s own ideas.

17. The four causes and conditions fulfilled—seeing the scroll is like seeing the Buddha. The treatise-author explains the four causes and conditions of this background: he has come, at death, from the pure worlds of the buddhas of the ten directions (to deliver beings with whom he has affinity, and because he shares causes and conditions with Śākyamuni Buddha); because he aroused the mind immeasurable kalpas ago, the power of his merit is thick; from the arousing of the mind he has constantly practised the six perfections (distinguishing him from one who aroused the mind long ago but does not practise meritorious deeds); because he practises constantly, he can see and make offerings to immeasurable buddhas. The four causes and conditions fulfilled, he obtains immeasurable merit and wisdom, his afflictions are thin, his mind is pliant, his faculties of faith and wisdom are sharp, and so he enters deeply into prajñā: on seeing the scroll, at that very moment there arises in his mind ‘it is like seeing the Buddha’, and on opening the scroll to seek its meaning, at that very moment there arises in his mind ‘it is like hearing from the Buddha’. The treatise-author also sets out the three marks of understanding in accordance: all is signless; going beyond the two dharmas of the twelve sense-fields; and, within the non-dual Dharma, the mind being attached to nothing, which is called nothing to be attained.

18. One mark, the signless—the simile of the hundred rivers returning to the sea. The treatise-author explains ‘unheard and unseen’: Subhūti, hearing that to see the scroll is like seeing the Buddha, suspects that this may involve some attachment, and so asks whether it can be seen and heard; his meaning is that prajñā is ultimate emptiness, which even the divine eye and divine ear cannot see or hear, how much less the fleshly eye and fleshly ear. The Buddha answers in accord with his intent that it cannot be seen or heard; the causes and conditions are that when all dharmas enter prajñā, 「皆一相無相，是中無分別聞者、見者及可聞、可見」 tr. "all are one mark, the signless; within it there is no discrimination of hearer or seer, or of what can be heard or what can be seen". Ordinary people discriminate the six faculties as sharp and the six sense-objects as dull; when all dharmas enter prajñā, 「如百川歸海，皆為一味」 tr. "as the hundred rivers return to the sea, all become one taste"—therefore it is said that dharmas are dull. ‘Dull’ is not a disparaging word; it is a word that dissolves the opposition of sharp and dull: when the hundred rivers enter the sea, salt and fresh are both lost, and the distinction of sharp and dull has nowhere left to apply.

19. When beings and the Dharma are apart from each other, there is no hearing and no seeing. The treatise-author adds one more sentence: when beings are apart from the Dharma, they cannot hear and cannot see; when the Dharma is apart from beings, it too cannot be heard and cannot be seen. The matter of hearing and seeing is from the start a provisional establishment arising when beings and the Dharma come together: take the person who can hear on his own, without any Dharma that is heard, and hearing is not established; take the Dharma that is heard on its own, without any person who can hear, and hearing again is not established. Since it is a provisional establishment through coming together, the hearer and the seer are both without self-nature—this sentence uses the meaning of dependent arising to complete the meaning of the real mark in the passage above; unheard and unseen is not a closing of the Dharma treasury, but a statement, as it truly is, that subject and object are fundamentally empty. Taking the two passages together, one speaks from the one mark of all dharmas, the other from the mutual dependence of subject and object, and both come back to this: within prajñā there is no fixed, real hearing or seeing to be found.

20. The three explanations of practising, the power of skilful means, and destroying nothing, and the two benefits. The treatise-author poses a question: it has already been asked above how long ago intent was aroused; why ask again now? The answer: the Buddha spoke of prajñā in two marks—saying both that it can be seen and heard and that it cannot be seen or heard—and so Subhūti asks how long it takes a bodhisattva to obtain this skilful means, 「能行有、能行無，行有不墮三界、行無不墮斷滅」 tr. "to be able to practise existence and to be able to practise non-existence, practising existence without falling into the three realms, practising non-existence without falling into annihilation". The Buddha answers that it must be told case by case. The treatise-author explains, word by word, the one of first-aroused intent who can practise: practising is 「一心信受常行」 tr. "receiving it in faith with one mind and constantly practising it"; the power of skilful means is practising the six perfections and giving rise to merit while the mind does not cling; destroying nothing among all dharmas is that the power of faith and wisdom is great, so that on hearing the dharmas of the Great Vehicle, of the śrāvakas, or of those of the outside paths, one destroys none of them, and draws from them two benefits—discriminating path and non-path, relinquishing what is not to be practised and practising what is right; and all dharmas entering prajñā, where there is 「無是、無非，無破、無受」 tr. "no right and no wrong, no breaking and no receiving".

21. The chain of karma and result in one who aroused intent long ago but does not receive it in faith. The treatise-author explains the negative side: there are bodhisattvas who aroused intent long ago and have made offerings to a thousand myriad koṭi of buddhas, 「用有所得行六波羅蜜，不信受是般若波羅蜜」 tr. "practising the six perfections with something to be attained, and not receiving this prajñāpāramitā in faith". Their karma and results form a chain: in past lives they heard deep prajñā, did not have faith in it or receive it, and rose from their seats and left; now, when the Buddha expounds it for them, they still do not have faith in it or receive it; the causes and conditions of the karma of not having faith and not receiving give rise to the causes and conditions of the karma of delusion; because of delusion, 「疑悔惡邪，著心轉增」 tr. "doubt, regret, evil, and wrongness, and the attached mind, grow and grow"; because the attached mind grows and grows, in the midst of the great assembly they disparage and destroy prajñā; because they destroy prajñā, they break the omniscience of the buddhas of the three times and the ten directions; because of the sin of breaking omniscience, on changing bodies they fall into the great hells. Every link in the chain is the result of the link before and the cause of the link after—slandering the Dharma is not the lapse of a single thought, but the attached mind accumulating until it bursts its banks.

22. The great hell is Avīci—grief is suffering of mind, vexation is suffering of body. The treatise-author explains 「大地獄」 tr. "the great hells": this is the Avīci hell, where for immeasurable hundreds of thousands of myriads of koṭi of asaṃkhyeya years one undergoes grief, suffering, and vexation; 「憂愁是心苦，惱是身苦」 tr. "grief is suffering of mind; vexation is suffering of body". One sentence of gloss divides the suffering of the hells into two headings: the torment undergone by the body is vexation; the mind knowing there is no time of release and being seared and pressed by it is grief. The sin of breaking the Dharma arises from an attached mind and wrong view and is completed through the mouth, and its retribution too is undergone in both mind and body—the heading of suffering of mind corresponds exactly to the doubt, regret, evil, and wrongness at the time the karma was made, and the heading of suffering of body corresponds exactly to teaching others to disparage and slander and ruining the bodies of others. In explaining the hells the treatise-author does not dramatise with a single word, but only makes a glossing division into headings, which on the contrary makes its weight credible and fit to serve as a warning.

23. From one great hell to another great hell—a hundred koṭi of Sumerus, a hundred koṭi of Avīcis. The treatise-author explains the mark of passing round and round: just as, through the causes and conditions of merit, there are the six heavens of desire above, so, through the causes and conditions of sinful karma, there are the eight great hells below, each with sixteen lesser hells, and Avīci is the greatest; in the three-thousand great-thousand world there are a hundred koṭi of Mount Sumerus, and so there are a hundred koṭi of Avīci hells; therefore it is said that one goes from one Avīci to another Avīci, 「如人從會至會」 tr. "as a person goes from one gathering to another gathering"; when the fire-kalpa arises and the sin is not yet exhausted, one is moved to other worlds of the ten directions; when the fire-kalpa arises there in turn, one passes on again and comes back here, and so without end. The simile of going from gathering to gathering is extremely cold and stark: the migration between hells is, in the eyes of sinful karma, as ordinary as going off to a gathering—driven by the power of karma, wherever one goes is a hell.

24. When the sin is slightly reduced, one passes round and round through the animal realm. When the sin of breaking prajñā is slightly reduced, one is reborn, round and round, 「勤苦畜生中」 tr. "among toiling, suffering animals"; when the fire-kalpa arises here, one is born again among the animals of another world, undergoing suffering round and round; when the fire-kalpa arises there, one comes back here and passes round and round again as before. After the hells there is not at once a human body; in between there is still the animal realm, and the mark of passing round and round there is entirely the same as in the hells—when the fire-kalpa arises one is moved, and while the sin is not yet exhausted one comes back. The emergence from the retribution for sin has its order: when the heavy retribution is exhausted, the remaining retribution continues, like water receding, leaving a mark at every level; it does not suddenly grow light merely because one has left the hells. The treatise specially uses the two words ‘toiling, suffering’ of the animal realm—bearing loads and doing labour, driven and goaded by people—which matches exactly the karma of having once despised the Dharma and those who expound the Dharma; the mark of the remaining retribution still corresponds to the karmic cause without confusion.

25. Born blind, without a tongue, without ears, without hands—the marks of the sin correspond one by one to the karmic causes. The treatise-author explains the causes of the maimed retribution in a human body: one is born into a family of the blind, 「不欲見般若波羅蜜罪故」 tr. "because of the sin of not wishing to see prajñāpāramitā"; because one despised those who expound the Dharma, one is born into low and base families such as those of caṇḍālas and those who clear dung and carry corpses; 「毀呰說法者故無舌，不欲聞故無耳，麾手非撥故無手」 tr. "because one disparaged those who expound the Dharma, one is without a tongue; because one did not wish to hear, one is without ears; because one waved one’s hands to reject and brush it away, one is without hands". Four sentences, four correspondences: once one did not wish to see, now one has no eyes with which to see; once one disparaged, now one has no tongue with which to speak; once one did not wish to hear, now one has no ears with which to hear; once one waved the hands to brush it away, now one has no hands to wave. Further, though this person’s mind loves the Buddha, because of delusion he 「毀滅佛母，破壞法藏」 tr. "destroys the mother of the buddhas and breaks the Dharma treasury", and so he is born where there is no Buddha, no Dharma, and no Saṅgha. The result is not a punishment added from outside; it is the mark of the karma appearing of itself.

26. Why the hungry ghosts are not spoken of—because it is hatred and delusion, not avarice. The treatise-author poses a question: among the three evil destinies, why is birth among the hungry ghosts not spoken of? The answer: those who break and destroy the Dharma mostly do so through two afflictions, 「所謂瞋恚、愚癡。慳貪發故墮餓鬼，此中無慳故不說」 tr. "namely anger and hatred, and delusion. It is because avarice arises that one falls among the hungry ghosts; here there is no avarice, and so it is not spoken of". This question and answer shows the precision of the treatise-author’s classification: each of the three evil destinies has its own principal cause—avarice brings on the hungry ghosts, hatred and delusion bring on the hells and the animals; the karma of slandering the Dharma arises from wrong view, hatred, and pride, and is not associated with avarice, and so its retribution passes through the hells and the animals but not through the hungry ghosts. Results and afflictions call forth one another kind by kind; this is not something a vague single phrase like ‘evil has evil retribution’ can cover. The sickness of one who slanders the Dharma lies in relying on what he has understood and being hateful and proud toward the deep Dharma, not in stinginess with wealth or Dharma; therefore of the three evil destinies he passes through two and is spared one—being spared is not leniency, but shows precisely how exact and strict karma and result are, without overflow.

27. Why the five heinous sins are brought up, and the sixfold way in which they are not alike. The treatise-author explains why Śāriputra brought up the five heinous sins: Śāriputra is a śrāvaka, who had constantly heard that the five heinous sins are the gravest and lead to a fall into Avīci to undergo suffering for a kalpa; śrāvakas do not fully know that making offerings to prajñā obtains a great result and that slandering and disparaging prajñā obtains a great sin, and so he brought up the five heinous sins in his question. The answer that they are not alike is given 「以相去懸遠故」 tr. "because they are separated by a vast distance": one who disparages and slanders prajñā loses great benefit himself and also makes others lose it; he himself departs from it and also makes others depart; he himself destroys his roots of goodness and also destroys others’ roots of goodness; he himself smears on the poison of wrong view and also smears others with the poison; he loses his own body and also loses the bodies of others; because he himself does not know and is attached to love of dharmas, he breaks it and also makes others break it. In all six, self and others are named together, which shows exactly that the sin of slandering the Dharma lies in its spreading contagion from one to another, unlike the five heinous sins, which stop at what one does oneself.

28. The simile of parents’ love for their child—head, eyes, marrow, and brain piled higher than Sumeru. The treatise-author uses a simile to make clear how heavy is what is destroyed: parents’ love for their child is a 「恩極一世」 tr. "kindness that reaches only to the end of one life", and they love it also because of causes and conditions; the bodhisattva who practises prajñā, through boundless lives, cherishes beings with a deep mind. Parents who cherish their child 「無能以一眼與者」 tr. "are none of them able to give it even one eye"; the one who practises prajñā, through boundless kalpas, has given head, eyes, marrow, and brain, 「積過須彌，以施眾生」 tr. "piled up higher than Sumeru, giving them to beings". The point of the simile is to bring out how the kindness of the one who practises prajñā surpasses that of parents—in time, one life against boundless lives; in giving, not being able to give one eye against head, eyes, marrow, and brain piled higher than Sumeru. To destroy prajñā is to cut off that from which such kindness comes forth, and the weight of its sin can be measured by this.

29. The five heinous sins only destroy the fleshly body—the sin of disparaging prajñā has no comparison. The treatise-author gives his ruling directly: drawing blood from the Buddha’s body and killing an arhat 「但壞肉身，不壞法身」 tr. "only destroy the fleshly body; they do not destroy the Dharma body"; destroying the Saṅgha is separating it from its following and praising five dharmas, and 「不壞般若」 tr. "does not destroy prajñā"—therefore the five heinous sins cannot be like destroying prajñā; 「般若波羅蜜能令人作佛，毀般若罪則無喻」 tr. "prajñāpāramitā can make people buddhas; the sin of disparaging prajñā has no comparison". He further explains the deep intent of not allowing even the name to be heard: one who breaks prajñā may, through merit from former lives, be widely learned and well read, rich, noble, powerful and virtuous, skilled in conversation, and assisted by the hosts of Māra, and a bodhisattva who has not yet attained avaivartika is easily drawn in on seeing the flourishing of his following; therefore not even his name is allowed to be heard, how much less attaching oneself to him and receiving his teaching—the bodhisattva wishes to increase wholesome dharmas while this person wishes to break the Dharma, 「二事相違故」 tr. "because the two things are contrary to each other".

30. The explanation of decline, turbidity, and blackness—the simile of turbid, muddy water. The treatise-author explains 「衰濁」 tr. "decline and turbidity": like a person struck by decline, who has fine clothes and good food yet never has colour or strength, and who works his body hard at his tasks while his property wastes away day by day; because this person destroys the supreme Dharma Jewel of all the buddhas, though his karma of body and speech is good, and he keeps the precepts, gives, and praises the sūtras, 「善法終不增長；如濁水泥，不見面像，亦不中飲」 tr. "his wholesome dharmas never increase; like turbid, muddy water, in which one cannot see the image of one’s face, and which is not fit to drink". This person’s wrong views, doubt, and regret constantly disturb his mind; he is deeply attached to the dharma he heard before, and says that prajñā is without anything existent, empty, not firm, without sin or merit; because turbidity and confusion obscure his mind, he does not see the pure, real mark of the Dharma. As for 「黑性」 tr. "a nature of blackness": 「佛法中善法名白，不善法名黑」 tr. "in the Buddha’s Dharma, wholesome dharmas are called white, and unwholesome dharmas are called black"; because he constantly accumulates the unwholesome, he forms an unwholesome nature; those who receive his words in faith have the same sin. Keeping the precepts and giving, and yet wholesome dharmas do not grow—this is exactly the most dreadful part of the retribution for slandering the Dharma.

31. The question of the size of the body—the two causes and conditions for which the Buddha does not answer. The treatise-author explains the final question and answer: Śāriputra, having already heard of the times and places of undergoing the sin but not yet of the size of the body, 「意欲聞佛說其大身」 tr. "wished in his mind to hear the Buddha speak of that great body"—moreover, just as Śakra’s body is ten li tall and pleasure pervades it throughout, so he wished to know whether, if the body undergoing the sin is great, the suffering undergone is also much. The Buddha does not tell it for two causes and conditions: first, it has already been said above that one undergoes suffering and vexation for a long time in two evil destinies, and if he further spoke of a great, ugly, and evil body, people might not have faith in it, and those without faith would undergo long and severe suffering; second, if they had faith they would be greatly grieved and afraid, 「憂怖故風發，吐熱血死」 tr. "and because of grief and fear the wind would stir, and they would vomit hot blood and die", and even if they did not die their bodies would always be withered; and those without faith would add to their heavy sin in later lives. Both ends bring harm and neither brings any benefit, and so he does not tell it—in this not telling lies precisely the teacher’s twofold protective care for the two kinds of faculties in those who hear the Dharma.

32. A person of white nature and merit has enough to take as a support. Śāriputra asks again: may the Buddha tell it out of pity for people of the future age. The Buddha says: 「若有善根白性福德人，足作依止。」 tr. "If there is a person with roots of goodness, a white nature, and merit, it is enough for him to take as a support." The treatise-author explains it: a white nature is one 「與黑性相違」 tr. "contrary to a nature of blackness"; to take as a support is 「聞是受苦，更不敢作」 tr. "hearing of this suffering undergone, he no longer dares to do it". He further settles that the effect of hearing the Dharma depends on faith: if one has no faith, then even if the great body were spoken of, one would still have no faith; if one has faith, then 「聞上受苦久遠足可信」 tr. "hearing of the long duration of the suffering undergone, told above, is enough to be believed"—so there is no need to go on to tell the size of the body. The First Part closes here: the reason a bright warning can warn lies not in how startlingly it is told, but in whether the hearer is of white nature or of black nature; the same passage on the results of slandering the Dharma is a support for a person of white nature, and a condition of lack of faith and heavy sin for a person of black nature.

Do Not Misread

Do not read the teaching that slandering the Dharma leads to falling into the hells as words of intimidation and so step around it. The sūtra itself states its purpose in teaching this: Śāriputra asks for a bright warning for the future age, and the Buddha grants that the long duration of the suffering is enough to be a bright warning—it is a warning, not a threat. Moreover, the Buddha twice refuses to tell the size of the body received, fearing that those with faith would grieve, dread, and vomit blood, and that those without faith would add to their heavy sin; this shows precisely that the speaker cares for his hearers at every step, with no trace of intent to intimidate. This chapter should be read as a person of white nature takes it as a support—I would rather lose body and life than ever break the Dharma—and not as the faithless do, dismissing it as a skilful-means device and letting it lightly pass.

Do not read the bodhisattvas ‘who practise the six perfections with something to be attained’ as people of the outside paths or evil people. The sūtra says plainly that such people have seen many buddhas, immeasurable hundreds of thousands of myriads of koṭi, and have practised the six perfections in the presence of those buddhas—they are people within the Buddha’s gate who have cultivated for a long time, and only because they always practised with a mind of something to be attained, on hearing ultimate emptiness it is as if what they rely on were snatched away, and first they doubt, then they slander. The root of the calamity of slandering the Dharma lies not outside the gate but in grasping at marks inside the gate; this is exactly the closest warning in this chapter—making offerings to countless buddhas does not guarantee that one will not slander prajñā; if the attached mind is not removed, it grows and grows until it bursts its banks.

Do not read 「諸法鈍故」 tr. "because dharmas are dull" as meaning that dharmas are benighted and useless. ‘Dull’ is said against the ordinary person’s discrimination of the six faculties as sharp and the six sense-objects as dull: when all dharmas enter prajñā, like the hundred rivers returning to the sea they all become one taste, and the distinction of sharp against dull has nowhere left to apply, so it is called ‘dull’ as a whole. This dullness is precisely another name for the one mark, the signless, and does not contradict seeing the scroll being like seeing the Buddha—the treatise-author states plainly that the Buddha spoke of prajñā in two marks, both that it can be seen and heard and that it cannot be seen or heard; the practitioner should find skilful means on both sides, and should not cling to one sentence and discard the other.

Do not read the comparison of the five heinous sins with slandering the Dharma as saying that the five heinous sins are light. When the Buddha says ‘it should not be said that they are alike’, he is saying that the sin of slandering the Dharma is so heavy it has no comparison—prajñā can make people buddhas, and to disparage it is to disparage that from which the omniscience of the buddhas of the three times comes forth—not that drawing blood from the Buddha’s body or killing an arhat may be regarded lightly. That the five heinous sins only destroy the fleshly body and do not destroy the Dharma body is a comparison in terms of the depth and breadth of what is destroyed, not a grading of weight in terms of what may or may not be done. Both are karma of the utmost gravity; the intent of the sūtra lies in showing the honour of prajñā, not in lowering the guard against the five heinous sins.

Do not read 「我不聽聞其名字」 tr. "I do not allow even his name to be heard" as meaning that the Buddha bears hatred. As for the Buddha not allowing his name to be heard and not permitting anyone to attach themselves to him, the treatise-author explains it clearly: one who breaks prajñā may have merit from former lives, be widely learned and well read, and have a flourishing following, and a bodhisattva who has not yet attained non-retrogression is easily drawn along on seeing him—not allowing his name to be heard is to protect the root of faith of those not yet mature, as one keeps away from a poisoned well without hating the well. Connected with this, 「聽其言、信用其語，亦受如是苦」 tr. "those who listen to his words and have faith in and make use of what he says also undergo such suffering" is not guilt by association either; to receive the words of slander in faith is itself to sow the cause of one’s own lack of faith, and cause and effect each continue on their own.

Bearing on Practice

The first mirror this chapter offers for daily use is to examine one’s own reaction on hearing the deep Dharma. On hearing the teaching of ultimate emptiness and of nothing to be attained, does what arises in the mind wish, with reverent faith, to investigate it, or is it displeased and wish to leave? The sūtra describes the mark of one who slanders the Dharma: at first it is no more than 「聞是甚深般若波羅蜜，不樂，便捨去」 tr. "hearing this very deep prajñāpāramitā, he is displeased and abandons it and leaves"—from displeasure to abandoning to disparaging, there is no chasm in between. When, in hearing the Dharma day to day, one meets something that runs against one’s own views, first hold down the thought of displeasure, and remember the words about abandoning it in a former life and abandoning it again in this life; this is guarding against slander before it sprouts.

When practising wholesome dharmas, guard against the mind of something to be attained. The record of the negative figures in this chapter is startling—they have seen many buddhas and fully practised the six perfections—yet they fail because they always acted with something to be attained. In daily life, in giving, keeping the precepts, and reciting sūtras, besides the outward act always ask oneself one question: how much grasping at marks is in this? There is no need to abandon practice because of this; only let practice go together with the understanding of being apart from marks, as the treatise says, because of the power of skilful means, though one gives rise to the causes and conditions of merit, the mind does not cling.

The karma of speech above all must be guarded with regard to the Dharma. The karma of breaking the Dharma is completed through words of disparagement, and the result is being without a tongue, without ears, without hands, corresponding mark by mark. When people today discuss the Dharma, words of praise and blame come out of the mouth very easily; toward a deep Dharma one has not yet seen through, it is better to hold a mind that keeps the doubt open and asks for instruction, and not to pronounce the verdict that it is not the Dharma or not spoken by the Buddha. On seeing others teach the Dharma, even if there is something open to question, question the meaning and do not despise the person—the retribution for despising those who expound the Dharma is all there in the sūtra.

Establish a vow for oneself with 「寧失身命，終不破法」 tr. "I would rather lose body and life than ever break the Dharma". Śāriputra establishes this vow on behalf of white and pure good men and good women, and it is exactly the right practice after hearing the bright warning: not panic and fear for oneself, but setting the mind that protects the Dharma above body and life. In daily life this vow comes down to two things—oneself not slandering, and also not having faith in or making use of the words of slanderers, not rejoicing in arguments that slander the Dharma; those who listen to his words and have faith in what he says also undergo such suffering, and so to keep away from them is itself to keep the vow.

Further Resonances

The First Part is the first round in which the two roads of faith and slander are set face to face. The positive road is set up from Śāriputra’s question: where does one who has faith in and understands prajñā come from—the four causes and conditions of offerings to the buddhas of the ten directions, arousing the mind over immeasurable kalpas, and constantly practising the six perfections, fulfilled, so that seeing the scroll is like seeing the Buddha and opening the scroll is like hearing from the Buddha, and he understands the deep meaning in accordance with it by the signless, the non-dual, and nothing to be attained; though of first-aroused intent, if he has the power of skilful means he can practise it, practising existence without falling into the three realms, practising non-existence without falling into annihilation. The negative road bursts its banks from the three Chinese characters rendered here as ‘with something to be attained’: long practising the six perfections while grasping at marks is never transformed, on hearing deep prajñā one first doubts and then slanders; to disparage prajñā is to disparage the omniscience of the buddhas of the three times; one gives rise to the karma of breaking the Dharma, falls into the great hells and passes round and round through the ten directions, and when the sin thins and a human body is obtained, one is still born blind, without a tongue, without ears, without hands, the karmic causes and the marks of the results corresponding one by one. The one question comparing the five heinous sins settles the magnitude of the sin—they only destroy the fleshly body and do not destroy the Dharma body, so it should not be said that they are alike, and the sin of disparaging prajñā has no comparison; the one explanation of decline, turbidity, and blackness settles the present-life mark of the slanderer—keeping the precepts and giving, and yet wholesome dharmas never increase, like turbid, muddy water, in which one cannot see the image of one’s face and which is not fit to drink. At the end the Buddha does not tell the size of the body received but grants the long duration of the suffering as a bright warning, and it comes to rest in this: a person of white nature has enough to take as a support—I would rather lose body and life than ever break the Dharma. What the First Part establishes is the full scope of one passage of sūtra and one passage of treatise in the sixty-second fascicle: the causes and results of the faithful and the causes and results of the slanderer set side by side, while on the road of slander its sin has been spoken of but its prevention not yet fully told. How to restrain body, speech, and mind so as to escape this heavy sin, how many causes and conditions there are for disparaging and slandering deep prajñā, and on to the right meaning of neither bound nor released and ultimately pure—the Last Part of this chapter unfolds these in continuation, and they are not anticipated here.