21  The Unspeakable and the Spoken

Chapter twenty-one—The Unspeakable and the Spoken—is short, and the title is easy to explain. Dharma¹Dharma in this context refers to the real and true buddhanature. is unspeakable, and anything spoken is not dharma. To reiterate, everything that is spoken is not dharma because dharma cannot be spoken. Now onto the content. The Buddha says,

“Subhuti, do not say that the Tathagata thinks, ‘I have spoken dharma.’ Do not think in this way. Why? Anyone saying that the Buddha has spoken dharma slanders the Buddha, as they do not understand what I have been saying.

“Subhuti, the speaker has no dharma to speak of! Speaking dharma is merely a term called speaking dharma.”

The speaker has no dharma to speak of! There is no dharma. So why would anyone still speak dharma? This passage is extremely important as it contains the ultimate truth—the first and foremost essence of true reality.

[Grandmaster rephrases,] “Subhuti, don’t think this way—that I, the Tathagata, have spoken dharma. Don’t think this way. Why? Anyone saying that the Tathagata has spoken dharma slanders the Buddha, as this person doesn’t understand what I’ve been saying. Subhuti, the speaker has no dharma to speak of. Only when there is no dharma to speak of is it called speaking dharma.”

Do you understand? It may seem clear to you at first glance, but on second thought, it becomes quite confusing. Putting it into words only makes it more puzzling and bewildering. So, it may be best not to discuss it because the more you say, the more baffling it becomes.

There is a reason why the Buddha makes such a statement! It conveys the non-phenomena of self, others, sentient beings, and lifespan. The Buddha’s words make absolute sense when the non-phenomena is applied. Otherwise, everything the Buddha says is mind-boggling.

The Buddha states that he has not spoken on the dharma; therefore, no one should say that the Buddha has spoken dharma. If someone says that the Buddha has spoken dharma, they are slandering the Buddha, for they do not understand what the Buddha truly means.

“Subhuti, the speaker has no dharma to speak of!”

It’s called speaking dharma only when there’s no dharma to speak of. Although I’ve reiterated it three times, you’re still baffled. Well, I, too, am bewildered. It’s very difficult to explain this clearly. It’s indeed ineffable, so how does one even begin to explain it?

I often use the Moon as an analogy. On the Moon there are no human beings, so who speaks dharma? Nobody. Who listens to dharma? No one. Does dharma exist? No. Nothing exists there; no human beings, no one speaking dharma, no one listening to dharma, and no dharma to be spoken. That’s how it is on the Moon.

On Earth, however, there are human beings. At that time, Sakyamuni Buddha was on Earth. India is part of Earth. Vulture Peak (Gadhrakuta) is a mountain on Earth. So what did the Buddha mean when stating that he had not spoken any dharma, despite speaking at dharma ceremonies held at Vulture Peak?

The Buddha states that he does not speak any dharma. No dharma was spoken—that is because buddhanature is unspeakable. Buddhanature cannot be put into words. Whatever can be spoken is simply gibberish—rubbish. Spoken words are not dharma and are not buddhanature—as buddhanature is unspeakable and inexpressible.

For this reason, the Buddha states that if one asserts the Buddha has spoken dharma, then this person slanders the Buddha because they do not grasp what the Buddha means. Since buddhanature cannot be spoken, speaking dharma is essentially not speaking dharma. In other words, not saying anything about the unspeakable buddhanature is called speaking dharma. The [real] dharma teaching is to point to buddhanature as something that cannot be spoken.

Do you understand it better now? The dharma speaker has no dharma to speak of because buddhanature cannot be spoken—only then is it called speaking dharma. [The true] dharma teaching is to point out that buddhanature is unspeakable.

“…they do not understand what I have been saying.”

Why? Because buddhanature cannot be put into words. What is buddhanature? It is unspeakable. Saying that “buddhanature is unspeakable” is speaking dharma. The Buddha’s words, as written in this sutra, are quite baffling. The more you mull it over, the more baffled you are. It can be readily understood only by those who have a lucid understanding of the mind and have manifested their buddhanature. Otherwise, merely reciting the sutra is futile.

You must understand the essence of the Buddha’s teaching, which is the ultimate truth. You need to understand it! Once you do, it’ll be easier to understand what follows. But if you still don’t understand, then you will remain perplexed.

Then, the wise Subhuti asked the Buddha, “World-Honored One, can sentient beings who hear this teaching in the future believe and generate faith upon it?”

The Buddha replied, “Subhuti, they are not sentient beings. Why? Subhuti, the Tathagata says that sentient beings are not sentient beings; they are merely named sentient beings.”

Do you understand this statement? What is it talking about? [Grandmaster rephrases,] Sakyamuni Buddha tells Subhuti to listen carefully, “They are not sentient beings. Sentient beings are, in fact, not sentient beings.” Why are they not sentient beings? The Buddha continues, “Subhuti, the Tathagata says that sentient beings are not sentient beings. Because they are not sentient beings, they are called sentient beings.”

What is the Buddha talking about? It’s very easy to explain, right? Sakyamuni Buddha says that sentient beings are not sentient beings because they are buddhanature! In the eyes of the Buddha, everyone is buddhanature. In my eyes, too, everyone is buddhanature.

“Subhuti, the Tathagata says that sentient beings are not sentient beings…”

Why are they not sentient beings? Because they are buddhanature! They are called sentient beings because they have not truly understood their minds or realized their buddhanature. That’s why they are still sentient beings. They [and not the buddhas] refer to themselves as sentient beings. Do you now understand?

This chapter talks about buddhanature: buddhanature is unspeakable, and what is spoken is not buddhanature. In the eyes of the Buddha, there are no sentient beings, only buddhanature. As all sentient beings have buddhanature, all the Buddha sees is buddhanature and not sentient beings. Thus the Buddha says, “…they are not sentient beings.” However, these beings think that they are sentient beings because they cannot see buddhanature, and they call themselves sentient beings. Is this part now clear to everyone?

Why does the Buddha address Subhuti as “the wise Subhuti” in this passage? Why not just call him “Subhuti” as usual? By referring to him as “wise,” the Buddha is praising him for embodying wisdom. In this context, the word “wise” comes from two Chinese characters meaning wisdom and life. Wisdom refers to nature, while life signifies the body. Subhuti is endowed with the wisdom of empty-nature in a physical body. The wise Subhuti embodies the wisdom of the tathagatas, which is not ordinary wisdom. According to the Buddha, the wisdom of the tathagatas is the greatest wisdom.

I remember a short anecdote from the Compendium of the Five Lamps.²The Compendium of the Five Lamps is a historical compilation of Zen Buddhist anecdotes during the Northern and Southern Song Dynasty. Altogether, it consists of 20 scrolls. When Sakyamuni Buddha was about to enter parinirvana, Manjusri Bodhisattva descended and pleaded to the Buddha to stay in the saha world to turn the dharma wheel. In response, Sakyamuni Buddha asked Manjusri Bodhisattva, “Have I ever turned the dharma wheel?” Upon hearing that, Manjusri Bodhisattva instantly understood what the Buddha meant, said no more, and left.

The following is the most important statement made by the Buddha: “Have I spoken dharma? Have I turned the dharma wheel?” The Buddha has not spoken dharma because all sentient beings are buddhanature. Then why are sentient beings still sentient beings? Because they have not yet understood the nature of the mind, nor have they understood and seen their buddhanature. That’s why they are still sentient beings. But once they have a lucid understanding of the mind and have seen, manifested, and become buddhanature, what dharma is there to speak of? There is no need to speak dharma because buddhanature is unspeakable. Any dharma that can be spoken is not [true] dharma. This is the meaning of this passage.

Now everyone understands that sentient beings are meaningless. Living in this world is also meaningless. Even when you have generated tremendous merit, there is also no merit. How can there be any merit? Making money is meaningless. What do you make money for? To buy a grand house? It’s meaningless as well because the house is the house, while you are you. Similarly, buying cars is meaningless; cars are cars, and you are you. As for romances—away with them! Do you want to get married and have children? But your spouse is your spouse, your children are your children, and you are you. These are all meaningless. How can there be any meaning to this?

[There’s a saying,] when a person is in heaven, their money is in the bank, their spouse is in another person’s embrace, and their siblings are fighting over the inheritance. How can there be any meaning at all? At best, these are only for you to enjoy momentarily, as they will all be gone eventually.

Everything in the saha world is illusory; it is just a dream, an illusion. The Vajra Sutra states clearly that the entire saha world is merely dreams and illusions, bubbles, and shadows. In the future, we will talk about these metaphors—dreams, illusions, bubbles, and shadows. Speaking dharma is meaningless because only buddhanature is meaningful.

The transcendent power of exhaustive outflow and the Meritorious Heaven, which encompasses both the development and perfection stages, are also meaningful. The Vajra Sutra belongs to the perfection stage. But is the development stage important? Yes, it is important, and we need both. The middle way employs both stages. Why? Because the development stage is the perfection stage, and the perfection stage is the development stage. More clearly, sentient beings are buddhas, and buddhas are sentient beings. If you talk about emptiness, I will talk about existence. We must give importance to both emptiness and existence.

The Vajra Sutra talks about emptiness, yet emptiness is equivalent to existence, while existence is also emptiness. The material world is the spiritual world, and the spiritual world is also the material world. This is what is stated in the Heart Sutra—form is emptiness, emptiness is form; form is no other than emptiness, emptiness is no other than form. Existence is emptiness, and emptiness is existence. This is the middle way.

In tantric practices, the development stage is just as important because the perfection stage comes after one has perfected the development stage. How can you be perfect if you don’t practice the development stage? You reach the perfection stage through the cultivation of the development stage. The development stage is the cause, and the perfection stage is the fruition. The Vajra Sutra talks about fruition; thus it is spoken in that way.

You need to pay attention to the essential meaning of the Vajra Sutra. Otherwise, what would happen if you were to go to the extreme of emptiness or nihilism? It’s wrong to think that you are just buddhanature and not a sentient being, and therefore you can do whatever you want because it’s all about buddhanature anyway. That’s wrong! In such a case, you’ve neglected the law of cause and effect. If you’re too fixated on emptiness—nihilism—you’ll mistakenly ignore karma. This is a mistake! Do you now understand?

In Tantrayana, most practices are considered the middle way. We emphasize both existence and emptiness equally. We are not completely empty. Since sentient beings tend to cling more to existence, we teach them about emptiness. But if after completely emptying yourself and entering the realm of emptiness, you go to an extreme and become a nihilist, where you are oblivious to karma and thus act recklessly, then that is also a kind of attachment. This concept is spoken by the Buddha.

This is my explanation of The Unspeakable and the Spoken. The spoken is not dharma because dharma is unspeakable. If I had not explained this clearly, nobody would understand the meaning of this passage. It is challenging to explain, but fortunately Grandmaster can explain it.

Om mani padme hum.