Conze's comments

Conze says, “Merit is the indispensable condition for all further spiritual progress. Nevertheless, to aim at merit is to diminish it. And why? Because when giving, etc. is accompanied by wrong metaphysical views that assume the reality of gift, giver and reward, it produces only limited results. But if it aims at emptiness alone, then the reward becomes truly infinite. The selfless Bodhisattva’s merit, as Kamalashila says, is here compared to space, or the sky, because it is all-pervading, vast and inexhaustible.”

Conze says, “It was customary for arhans to testify to the fact that they had achieved arhanship.”

Conze says, “The thought which the bodhisattva should produce, or raise, is a completely free thought, which depends on no object or motive. It is the white heat of wisdom intent on luminous transparency of the Void.”

Concerning arocayami te subhute prativedayami te (I shall tell you, Subhuti, so you shall know), Conze says, “This was a formula often used for formal pronouncements by the Buddha.” The Buddha thinks Subhuti does not really understand how great an offering the bodhisattva’s offering surpasses. Hence, he inserts this phrase for emphasis.

Conze says, “The four major sections of the sutra each conclude with a few remarks on the merit which forms the basis of the spiritual achievements discussed and which is traced back to the teachings of this sutra. Chapters Eleven and Twelve in this way are connected to Chapter Eight.”

 ch.s 8, 11, 19, 28, 32

Conze ended his commentary here rather than proceed and try to make sense of what he considered “a chance medley of stray sayings,” which was how he viewed the rest of this sutra.

Among modern commentators, Conze alone stresses the paradox of the words used here: bhutasanjna (perception of the truth). If all perceptions are false, how can any perception be true? They can be true if they are known to be false. Once we know them for what they are, we can put them to use in crossing the Sea of Endless Rebirth and Unrelieved Suffering. Such perceptions are what the Buddha means here by “dharmas” or “buddha dharmas.” Bodhisattvas are those who are able to put such perceptions to use and then put them aside. Meanwhile, other translators (both Chinese and English) consider bhuta-sanjna a cliché and render both words by hsin (belief).

Conze says, “The reasoning here, though subtle, is quite intelligible: No separate dharma can possibly be perceived without a subjective act of perception taking place. ‘Perception’ comes from per-cap, and capio means ‘to take hold of, seize, grasp.’ But to seize on anything, either a dharma or a no-dharma, automatically involves an act of preference bound up with self-interest, self-assertion, and self-aggrandizement, and therefore unbecoming to the selfless.”

Conze says, “Psychologically, a negation gives sense only when warding off an attempted affirmation. Where there is no temptation to make positive statements, negations likewise lose their meaning. In other words, dharmas, as strictly empty, cannot even be denied.”

Conze says, “The prajna-paramita is both the cause and the effect of buddhahood. Because when they were bodhisattvas, the study of the prajna-paramita enabled them to win buddhahood. The prajna-paramita, and the merit derived from teaching it, is therefore here proclaimed as the real decisive cause and condition of buddhahood.”