The Forty Unshared Dharmas, and the Challenge to Omniscience
Forty qualities belonging to a buddha alone, from flying at will and transformation without limit to the vajra samādhi that nothing can break. Then the treatise stages its most sustained philosophical debate: an opponent argues, point by point and episode by episode from the Buddha's own recorded life, that no being can truly be omniscient — and the text answers every single charge in turn.
The Forty Unshared Dharmas, Named
四十不共法品第二十一
菩薩如是以三十二相、八十種好念佛生身已，今應念佛諸功德法，所謂：又應以四十，不共法念佛，諸佛是法身，非但肉身故。
諸佛雖有無量諸法，不與餘人共者，有四十法。若人念者，則得歡喜，何以故？諸佛非是色身，是法身故。如《經》說：「汝不應但以色身觀佛，當以法觀。」
四十不共法者：一者、飛行自在，二者、變化無量，三者、聖如意無邊，四、聞聲自在，五、無量智力知他心，六、心得自在，七、常在安慧處，八、常不忘誤，九、得金剛三昧力，十、善知不定事，十一、善知無色定事，十二、具足通達諸永滅事，十三、善知心不相應、無色法，十四、大勢波羅蜜，十五、無礙波羅蜜，十六、一切問答及記具足答波羅蜜，十七、具足三轉說法，十八、所說不空，十九、所說無謬失，二十、無能害者，二十一、諸賢聖中大將，二十五、四不守護，二十九、四無所畏，三十九、佛十種力，四十、無礙解脫。是為四十不共之法。
The Forty Unshared Dharmas Chapter
The bodhisattva, having thus been mindful of the Buddha's own physical body through the thirty-two marks and the eighty minor marks, ought now to be mindful of every buddha's own dharma of merit as well, namely: "One ought further to be mindful of the Buddha through these forty unshared dharmas, since every buddha is the very Dharma body, not merely a body of flesh."
Though every buddha possesses immeasurable dharmas, there are forty dharmas not shared with any other being. Should a person be mindful of them, they thereby attain joy — and why is this so? Because every buddha is not truly a body of physical form, but is the very Dharma body itself. As the sūtra states: "You ought not to behold the Buddha merely through his physical body — you ought to behold him through the Dharma."
The forty unshared dharmas are: first, mastery of flying at will; second, transformation without limit; third, noble wish-fulfillment without bound; fourth, mastery over hearing every sound; fifth, the immeasurable power of wisdom to know another's mind; sixth, attaining mastery of one's own mind; seventh, constantly abiding within tranquil wisdom; eighth, never once forgetting or erring; ninth, attaining the power of the vajra samādhi; tenth, skillfully knowing every uncertain matter; eleventh, skillfully knowing every matter of the formless absorptions; twelfth, being complete in penetrating every matter of ultimate cessation; thirteenth, skillfully knowing every dharma dissociated from mind, and every formless dharma; fourteenth, the pāramitā of great power; fifteenth, the pāramitā of freedom from obstruction; sixteenth, the pāramitā of answering every question and giving complete replies to every prediction; seventeenth, being complete in the threefold turning of expounding the Dharma; eighteenth, whatever is spoken is never empty; nineteenth, whatever is spoken is free of any error; twentieth, none are able to harm him; twenty-first, the very general among every worthy and noble one; twenty-fifth, the four things requiring no guarding; twenty-ninth, the four fearlessnesses; thirty-ninth, the Buddha's own ten powers; fortieth, unobstructed liberation. These are the forty unshared dharmas.
The forty items are numbered non-consecutively in the source text itself — jumping from twenty-one to twenty-five to twenty-nine to thirty-nine — because several items name entire numbered sets (the four things requiring no guarding, the four fearlessnesses, the ten powers) whose own internal members are counted individually within the total of forty, a convention preserved here exactly as it appears in the base text. The chapter's own opening distinction between the physical body just finished being visualized in Fascicle 9 and the Dharma body now being contemplated marks a shift in the very object of buddha-recollection, from bodily form to functional quality.
Flying at Will
今當廣說：飛行自在者：諸佛飛行如意自在，如意、滿足，速疾、無量、無礙。所以者何？
佛若欲於虛空，先舉一足，次舉一足，即能如意。
若欲舉足躡虛空而去、若欲住立不動而去，即能得去。
若結跏趺安坐而去，亦能得去。
若欲安臥而去，亦復能去。
若欲於青琉璃莖、真珊瑚葉、黃金為鬚如意珠臺，無量圍繞如日初出，是寶蓮花遍於空中，蹈上而去。
若欲如日月宮殿、帝釋勝殿、夜摩天、兜率陀天、化樂天、他化自在天、諸梵王等宮殿，隨意化作如彼宮殿坐中而去，即能成辦。
若更以餘種種因緣，隨意能去，是故說言：「隨諸所願，皆能滿足」。
是故諸佛能以一步，過恒河沙等三千大千世界。
有人言：「佛能一念頃，過若干百千國土。」有人言：「若知佛一步一念能如是去，即可得量。」《經》中說：「諸佛力無量」。是故當知，諸佛虛空飛行自在無量無邊。
何以故？若大聲聞弟子神通自在，以一念頃能過百億閻浮提、瞿陀尼、弗婆提、欝多羅，越四大王天、忉利天、夜摩天、兜率陀天、化樂天、他化自在天、梵天，一瞬中過若干念，積此諸念，以成一日、七日、一月、一歲，乃至百歲。一日過五十三億二百九十六萬六千三千大千世界，如是聲聞人百歲所過，佛一念能過。
復次，假令恒河中沙，一沙為一劫，有大聲聞神通第一，壽命如是諸恒河沙大劫，於一念中過若干世界，積如是念以為日月歲數，以自在力盡是諸大劫數所過國土，佛能一念中過。諸佛飛行自在，如是速疾。
於一切鐵圍山、十寶山，四天王處、忉利天處、夜摩、兜率陀、化樂、他化自在、梵世、梵眾、大梵、少光、無量光、光音、少淨、無量淨、遍淨、廣果、無相、不廣、不惱、喜見、妙見、阿迦尼吒天，如是諸處；大風、大水、劫盡火等，及諸天、龍、夜叉、乾闥婆、阿修羅、緊那羅、摩睺羅伽、諸天、魔及梵、沙門、婆羅門及得諸神通者，不能為礙，是故說飛行無礙。
又，飛行自在，如意所作，出沒於地，能過石壁、諸山障礙等，佛於此事勝諸聖人。
又，佛能以常身立至梵天，聲聞人所不能及，有如是等差別。
I shall now explain these at length. As for "mastery of flying at will": every buddha's own flight is exactly as they wish, at will, complete, swift, immeasurable, unobstructed. And why is this so?
Should the Buddha wish to travel through empty space, raising one foot, then the other in turn, he is thereby able to do so exactly as he wishes.
Whether wishing to raise his own foot and tread upon empty space as he departs, or wishing to stand motionless as he departs, he is thereby able to depart.
Should he wish to sit cross-legged in meditation as he departs, he is likewise able to depart.
Should he wish to lie down at ease as he departs, he is likewise able to depart.
Should he wish to travel upon a jeweled lotus flower with a stem of blue lapis lazuli, petals of genuine coral, and stamens of yellow gold forming a wish-fulfilling jeweled dais, surrounded on every side without measure like the sun at its very first rising, filling all of empty space, he treads upon it as he departs.
Should he wish to travel seated within a palace such as that of the sun and moon, the supreme palace of Śakra, or the palaces of the Yāma heaven, the Tuṣita heaven, the Nirmāṇarati heaven, the Paranirmitavaśavartin heaven, or the various lords of Brahmā, he transforms himself at will into a form seated within such a palace, and this is thereby accomplished.
Should he wish to travel through any further cause and condition whatsoever, he is able to do so exactly as he wishes — it is for this reason that it is said: "According with every wish, he is able to fulfill it completely."
It is for this reason that every buddha is able, with a single step, to traverse a great trichiliocosm as numerous as the sands of the Ganges.
There are those who say: "The Buddha is able, within the span of a single thought, to traverse several hundred thousand lands." There are those who say: "Should one know that the Buddha's own single step, within a single thought, is able to travel thus, one is thereby able to measure it." The sūtra states: "Every buddha's own power is immeasurable." It is for this reason that one should know that every buddha's own mastery of flying through empty space is immeasurable and boundless.
And why is this so? Should even a great śrāvaka disciple's own mastery of spiritual power be such that, within the span of a single thought, they are able to traverse a hundred koṭis of Jambudvīpas, Godānīyas, Pūrvavidehas, and Uttarakurus, crossing beyond the heaven of the Four Great Kings, the Trāyastriṃśa heaven, the Yāma heaven, the Tuṣita heaven, the Nirmāṇarati heaven, the Paranirmitavaśavartin heaven, and the Brahmā heaven, traversing several such thoughts within a single instant, and accumulating these very thoughts to form a single day, seven days, a single month, a single year, up to a hundred years — in a single day traversing five billion three hundred twenty-nine million six hundred sixty thousand great trichiliocosms — such a śrāvaka's own traversal across a hundred years, the Buddha is able to traverse within a single thought.
Furthermore, suppose the sand within the Ganges river, each single grain counted as one kalpa; there is a great śrāvaka of the very foremost spiritual power, whose own lifespan spans as many great kalpas as there are grains of sand in the Ganges, traversing several worlds within a single thought, accumulating these very thoughts to form days, months, and years, and, through this very mastery, traversing every land across the full span of all these great kalpas — the Buddha is able to traverse this within a single thought. Every buddha's own mastery of flight is swift in just this way.
Throughout every iron ring-mountain and the ten jeweled mountains, the abode of the Four Heavenly Kings, the Trāyastriṃśa heaven, the Yāma, Tuṣita, Nirmāṇarati, and Paranirmitavaśavartin heavens, the Brahmā world, the Brahmā-attendant heaven, the Great Brahmā heaven, the heaven of lesser light, immeasurable light, and radiant sound, the heaven of lesser purity, immeasurable purity, and universal purity, the heaven of vast fruit, the heaven without conception, and the heavens of no vastness, no affliction, fair vision, sublime vision, and Akaniṣṭha — through every such place; through great winds, great floods, and the fire that ends a kalpa, and every deva, nāga, yakṣa, gandharva, asura, kiṃnara, mahoraga, deva, māra, Brahmā, ascetic, brahmin, and every being who has attained spiritual powers — none of these are able to obstruct him; it is for this reason that his own flight is said to be unobstructed.
And further, this very mastery of flight, accomplished exactly as he wishes, emerging and vanishing through the very earth, able to pass through stone walls, mountains, and every such obstruction — in this very matter, the Buddha surpasses every noble one.
And further, the Buddha is able, with his own ordinary body, to stand and reach the Brahmā heaven directly, something no śrāvaka is able to attain — there exist differences such as this between them.
The precise numerical comparisons here — a great śrāvaka's own century of travel across five billion three hundred twenty-nine million six hundred sixty thousand trichiliocosms per day, equaled by the Buddha in a single thought, and further exceeded when even that śrāvaka's own lifespan is stretched across as many kalpas as grains of sand in the Ganges — belong to a distinctive genre within Buddhist cosmological literature that uses escalating, almost absurdist arithmetic to gesture at a difference in kind rather than merely a difference in degree between a buddha's own powers and even the greatest disciple's own attainment.
Transformation Without Limit, and Noble Wish-Fulfillment
變化自在者：變化事中有無量力。
餘聖變化有量有邊，諸佛變化無量無邊。
餘聖於一念中變化一身，佛以一念隨意變化，有無量事。如《大神通經》中說：「佛從臍中出蓮花，上有化佛，次第遍滿，上至阿迦尼吒天。諸佛變化所作眾事，種種色、種種形，皆以一念。」
又，聲聞人能於千國土內變化，諸佛能於無量無邊國土，變化自在，又能倍是。諸佛得堅固變化三昧。
又，諸佛變化能過恒沙世界，皆從一身出。
復次，佛能普於十方無量無邊世界，現生受身墮地行七步、出家、學道、破魔軍眾、得道、轉法輪；如是等事，皆以一念作之。是諸化佛皆亦復能施作佛事，如是等諸佛所變化事，無量無邊。
又於聖如意中，有無量力。
聖如意者：所謂從身放光，猶如猛火，又出諸雨，變化壽命，隨意長短。於一念頃能至梵天，能變諸物，隨意自在，能動大地。
光明能照無量世界而不斷絕。
聖如意者，不與凡夫等故，無有量故，過諸量故；諸凡夫等，雖變化諸物，少不足言。
聲聞人能裂千國土，還使令合，能令壽命若至一劫，若減一劫。
還能令短，短已不能令長，於一念中能至千國土、梵世界。能於千國土隨意變化。能動千國土，能身出光明，相續不絕照千國土。設使身滅，能留神力，變化如本於千國土。
小辟支佛，能於萬國土，萬種變化。
中辟支佛，能於百萬國土，百萬種變化。
大辟支佛，能於三千大千國土，變化如上。
諸佛世尊：能過諸恒河沙世界算數變化。
身出水火。
能末恒河沙等世界，令如微塵，又能還合能住。
壽命無量劫數，還能令少，少已還能令長。
能於無量時住，變化隨意。
能以一念至無量無邊恒河沙等世界。
能以常身，立至梵世。
又能變化無量無邊阿僧祇世界皆令作金，或令作銀、琉璃、珊瑚、車璩、馬瑙。取要言之，能令作無量寶物，隨意所作。
又復能變恒河沙等世界大海水，皆使為乳、酥、油、酪、蜜，隨意而成。
又能以一念變化諸山皆是真金，過諸算數不可稱計。
又能震動無量無邊世界，一切欲界、色界、諸天宮殿。
又以一念能令若干金色光明遍照，如是無量世界，日月光明及欲、色界諸天宮殿光明，皆令不現。
雖滅度後，能於如是諸世界中，隨意久近，流布神力常不斷絕。
As for "transformation without limit": within the very matter of transformation, there exists an immeasurable power.
Every other noble one's own transformation is bounded and finite; every buddha's own transformation is immeasurable and boundless.
Every other noble one, within a single thought, transforms a single body; the Buddha, within a single thought, transforms exactly as he wishes, accomplishing immeasurable matters. As the Sūtra of Great Spiritual Powers states: "The Buddha, from his own navel, brings forth a lotus flower, upon which sits a manifested buddha; these fill the space in due succession, reaching upward as far as the Akaniṣṭha heaven. Every buddha's own transformative works, of every kind of color and every kind of form, are all accomplished within a single thought."
And further, a śrāvaka is able to transform within a thousand lands; every buddha is able to transform freely within immeasurable, boundless lands, and further able to exceed even this. Every buddha attains the firm and unshakeable samādhi of transformation.
And further, every buddha's own transformation is able to exceed a world as numerous as the sands of the Ganges, all emanating from a single body.
Furthermore, the Buddha is able, universally throughout the immeasurable, boundless worlds of the ten directions, to manifest a birth, receive a body, descend to earth and take seven steps, go forth from home, study the path, break the army of māra, attain the path, and turn the wheel of the Dharma; matters such as these are, in every case, accomplished within a single thought. Every one of these manifested buddhas is likewise able to carry out the very work of a buddha — the transformative works of every buddha, in this way, are immeasurable and boundless.
And further, within noble wish-fulfillment too, there exists an immeasurable power.
"Noble wish-fulfillment" refers to emitting light from one's own body, just like a fierce blaze, and further sending down rain, transforming one's own lifespan, longer or shorter exactly as one wishes. Within the span of a single thought, reaching the Brahmā heaven, able to transform every object exactly as one wishes, able to shake the great earth itself.
This radiance is able to illuminate immeasurable worlds without ever being interrupted.
"Noble wish-fulfillment" is unlike that possessed by the ordinary being, since it is without measure, exceeding every measure; the ordinary being, though able to transform certain objects, accomplishes so little it is scarcely worth mentioning.
A śrāvaka is able to split apart a thousand lands, and cause them to reunite once more, able to cause their own lifespan to reach a full kalpa, or to fall short of a kalpa.
They are further able to shorten it, though, once shortened, unable to lengthen it again; within a single thought, able to reach a thousand lands, or the Brahmā world. Able to transform, exactly as they wish, within a thousand lands. Able to shake a thousand lands, able to emit light from their own body, continuously illuminating a thousand lands without interruption. Should their own body pass away, they are able to retain this spiritual power, continuing to transform exactly as before, within a thousand lands.
A lesser pratyekabuddha is able to transform, in ten thousand ways, within ten thousand lands.
A middling pratyekabuddha is able to transform, in a million ways, within a million lands.
A great pratyekabuddha is able to transform, as described above, within a great trichiliocosm.
Every buddha, every world-honored one, is able to transform beyond any count, exceeding a number of worlds as numerous as the sands of the Ganges.
Able to send forth water and fire from his own body.
Able to pulverize a world as numerous as the sands of the Ganges into fine dust, and further able to reunite it and cause it to remain stable.
His own lifespan spanning immeasurable kalpas, able to shorten it, and, once shortened, able to lengthen it once more.
Able to remain for an immeasurable span of time, transforming exactly as he wishes.
Able, within a single thought, to reach immeasurable, boundless worlds as numerous as the sands of the Ganges.
Able, with his own ordinary body, to stand and reach the Brahmā world directly.
Able further to transform immeasurable, boundless, incalculable worlds, causing them all to become gold, or causing them to become silver, lapis lazuli, coral, mother-of-pearl, or agate. To speak of the essential point, able to cause them to become immeasurable jeweled objects, exactly as he wishes.
Further able to transform the great ocean waters of worlds as numerous as the sands of the Ganges, causing them all to become milk, ghee, oil, curds, or honey, accomplished exactly as he wishes.
Further able, within a single thought, to transform every mountain into genuine gold, beyond every count, incalculable.
Further able to shake immeasurable, boundless worlds, and every palace of every deva throughout the desire realm and form realm.
Further able, within a single thought, to cause a certain golden radiance to illuminate universally, so that, throughout these immeasurable worlds, the radiance of the sun and moon, and of every deva's own palace throughout the desire and form realms, is entirely made to disappear.
Though he has already passed into extinction, he is able, within these very worlds, according to what is fitting, whether for a long or short span, to continue spreading his own spiritual power without ever being interrupted.
The explicit ranking here — a śrāvaka limited to a thousand lands, a lesser pratyekabuddha reaching ten thousand, a middling one a million, a great one a full trichiliocosm, and a buddha exceeding all count entirely — extends the same graded hierarchy used throughout this treatise for merit and wisdom into the domain of supernormal power specifically, making explicit that even the greatest pratyekabuddha's own attainment remains a bounded quantity next to a buddha's own boundless one.
Mastery Over Every Sound Heard, and Knowing Every Mind
聞聲自在者：諸佛所聞聲中，隨意自在。
若無量百千萬億技樂同時俱作，若無量百千萬億眾生一時發言，若遠若近，隨意所聞。假令恒河沙等三千大千世界所有眾生，同時俱作若干百千萬種伎樂，遍滿世界，復有恒河沙等世界眾生，同時以梵音，遍滿一切世界。諸佛若欲於中聞一音聲，隨意得聞，餘者不聞。
聲聞所應聞者若有大神力障者，不能得聞。諸佛所聞音聲，雖有大神力障，亦能得聞。
聲聞能聞千國土內音聲，諸佛世尊所聞音聲，過無量無邊世界最細音聲，皆亦得聞。
大神力聲聞住梵世界，發大音聲能滿千國土內；諸佛世尊若住於此，若住梵世，若住餘處，音聲能滿無量無邊世界。若欲令眾生聞，過無量無邊世界最細音聲，能令得聞；欲令不聞，即便不聞。
是故，但有諸佛於聞聲中得自在力。
知他心無量自在力者：諸佛世尊，於無量無邊世界現在眾生，悉知其心。
餘人但隨名相故知，諸佛以名相義故知。
又餘人不能知無色界眾生諸心，諸佛能知。
餘人雖有知他心智，大力者障則不能知。假使一切眾生成就心通皆如舍利弗、目犍連、辟支佛等，以其神力障一人心，不令他知，而佛能壞彼神力，得知其心。
復次，佛以神力悉知眾生上中下心、垢心、淨心。
又知諸心各有所緣，從是緣至是緣，次第遍知一切諸緣。
又以實相知眾生心。
是故，諸佛以無量力悉知他心。
第一調伏心波羅蜜者：善知諸禪定、三昧、解脫，住、入、起時。諸佛若入定、若不入定，欲繫心一緣中，隨意久近，如意能住。從此緣中更住餘緣，隨意能住。若佛住常心，欲令人不知，則不能知。假使一切眾生，知他心智如大梵王、如大聲聞、辟支佛，成就智慧，知他人心，以此諸智令一人得，是人欲知佛常心，若佛不聽，則不能知。如《七方便經》中說：「行者善知定相，善知住定相，善知起定相，善知安隱定相，善知定行處相，善知定生相，善知宜諸定法、不宜諸定法。」是名「諸佛第一調伏心波羅蜜」。
As for "mastery over hearing every sound": within whatever sound every buddha hears, he possesses mastery exactly as he wishes.
Whether immeasurable hundreds of thousands of myriads of koṭis of musical instruments play simultaneously, or immeasurable hundreds of thousands of myriads of koṭis of sentient beings speak all at once, whether far or near, he hears exactly as he wishes. Suppose that every sentient being throughout a great trichiliocosm as numerous as the sands of the Ganges were simultaneously to perform several hundred thousand myriad kinds of music, filling this world entirely, and there were, further, sentient beings throughout a world as numerous as the sands of the Ganges, simultaneously filling every world with the Brahmā-voice. Should every buddha wish, amid all of this, to hear a single sound, they are able to hear it exactly as they wish, while hearing nothing else.
Should whatever a śrāvaka ought to be able to hear be obstructed by some great spiritual power, they are unable to hear it. Whatever sound every buddha hears, though obstructed by some great spiritual power, he is nonetheless able to hear it.
A śrāvaka is able to hear sound within a thousand lands; whatever sound every buddha, every world-honored one, hears — even the very faintest sound throughout immeasurable, boundless worlds — he is likewise able to hear it entirely.
A śrāvaka of great spiritual power, dwelling within the Brahmā world, sending forth a great sound, is able to fill a thousand lands; every buddha, every world-honored one, whether dwelling here, dwelling within the Brahmā world, or dwelling elsewhere, this very sound is able to fill immeasurable, boundless worlds. Should he wish to cause sentient beings to hear even the very faintest sound throughout immeasurable, boundless worlds, he is able to cause them to hear it; should he wish them not to hear it, they thereupon fail to hear it.
It is for this reason that only every buddha attains this very power of mastery within the hearing of sound.
As for "the immeasurable power of mastery in knowing another's mind": every buddha, every world-honored one, toward every sentient being presently existing throughout immeasurable, boundless worlds, entirely knows their own mind.
Every other being knows only through following names and marks; every buddha knows through the very meaning of names and marks themselves.
And further, every other being is unable to know the minds of sentient beings within the formless realm; every buddha is able to know them.
Every other being, though possessing the wisdom to know another's mind, is unable to know it should some being of great power obstruct it. Suppose every sentient being were to accomplish mastery of mind exactly as Śāriputra, Maudgalyāyana, and every pratyekabuddha have, and, through their own spiritual power, obstruct a single person's own mind, so that no other is able to know it — the Buddha is nonetheless able to break through this very spiritual power, and attain knowledge of their own mind.
Furthermore, the Buddha, through his own spiritual power, entirely knows every sentient being's own superior, middling, or inferior mind, defiled mind, and pure mind.
And further, he knows that every mind possesses its own particular object, and, proceeding from this object to that object, knows every object in due succession, entirely.
And further, he knows every sentient being's own mind through its very true mark.
It is for this reason that every buddha, through this immeasurable power, entirely knows another's mind.
As for "the foremost pāramitā of subduing the mind": skillfully knowing every meditative concentration, samādhi, and liberation, at the very moment of abiding within it, entering it, or arising from it. Every buddha, whether entering concentration or not entering concentration, wishing to bind his own mind to a single object, whether for a long or short span exactly as he wishes, is able to remain within it at will. From this very object, further abiding within some other object, he is able to remain within it at will. Should the Buddha abide within his own constant mind, wishing to prevent another from knowing it, they are thereby unable to know it. Suppose that every sentient being possessed the wisdom to know another's mind equal to that of a great lord Brahmā, or a great śrāvaka, or a pratyekabuddha, accomplishing this very wisdom, knowing another's own mind, and, through every such wisdom combined, causing a single person to attain it — should this person wish to know the Buddha's own constant mind, should the Buddha not permit it, they would remain unable to know it. As the Sūtra of the Seven Skillful Means states: "The practitioner skillfully knows the very mark of concentration, skillfully knows the mark of abiding within concentration, skillfully knows the mark of arising from concentration, skillfully knows the mark of secure and peaceful concentration, skillfully knows the mark of the very place where concentration is practiced, skillfully knows the mark of concentration's own arising, and skillfully knows which dharmas of concentration are fitting, and which are not fitting." This is called "every buddha's own foremost pāramitā of subduing the mind."
The distinction drawn between ordinary beings who "know only through following names and marks" and buddhas who "know through the very meaning of names and marks themselves" recalls the bowl-of-oil teaching from Fascicle 7 — names and marks function as a genuine but provisional surface, useful for communication yet never identical with what they point toward, and only a buddha's own knowledge penetrates all the way through to that underlying reality rather than stopping at its outward sign.
Constant Tranquil Wisdom, Never Forgetting, and the Vajra Samādhi
諸佛常安慧者：諸佛安慧常不動，念常在心。何以故？先知而後行，隨意所緣中，住無疑行故，斷一切煩惱故，出過動性故。
如佛告阿難：「佛於此夜得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，一切世間若天、魔、梵、沙門、婆羅門，以盡苦道教化周畢，入無餘涅槃。
於其中間，佛於諸受，知起、知住、知生、知滅；諸相、諸觸、諸覺、諸念，亦知起、知住、知生、知滅。」惡魔七年晝夜不息，常隨逐佛，不得佛短，不見佛念不在念安慧。
是名「諸佛常住安慧行中」。
不忘失法者：諸佛得不退法故，通達五藏法故，得無上法故，諸佛常不忘失。諸佛菩提樹下所得，乃至入無餘涅槃，若天、魔、梵、沙門、婆羅門及餘聖人，無能令佛有所忘失。如《法印經》中說：「道場所得是名實得，更無勝法。」如《衣毛竪經》說：「舍利弗！若人實語，有能於法不忘失者，應說我是。何以故？唯我一人無有忘失。」是名「諸佛於法無忘失」。
金剛三昧者：諸佛世尊金剛三昧，是不共法，無能壞故，於一切處無有障礙故，得正遍知故，壞一切法障礙故，等貫穿故，得諸功德利益力故，諸禪定中最上故。無能壞者，是故名為「金剛三昧」；如金剛寶無物能破者，是三昧亦如是。無有法可以壞者，是故名「金剛三昧」。
問曰：何故不可壞？
答曰：一切處無有閡故，如帝釋金剛無有閡處；是三昧亦如是。
問曰：是三昧，何故名「一切處不閡」？
答曰：正通達一切法故。諸佛住是三昧，悉能通達「過去、現在、未來、過出三世、不可說」五藏所攝法，是故名「一切處不閡」。
若諸佛住是三昧，諸所有法若不通達，名為有礙；而實不爾，是故名「無礙」。
問曰：何以故，是三昧通達一切法？
答曰：是三昧能開一切障礙法故，所謂「煩惱障閡、定障閡、智障閡」能開故，是名能通達一切法。
問曰：是三昧何故能開一切障，餘三昧不能？
答曰：是三昧善等貫穿二法，能壞諸煩惱山令無餘故，正遍通達一切法故，善得不壞心解脫故，是故此三昧能開一切障閡。
問曰：是三昧何故等貫穿二法？
答曰：住是三昧得力故，能得一切諸功德，餘三昧無如是力，是故是三昧能等貫穿。
問曰：何故住是三昧得力故，能得一切諸功德？
答曰：是三昧於諸定中最為第一，是故住是三昧能得諸功德。
問曰：何故是三昧，於諸定中最為第一？
答曰：是三昧無量無邊善根所成故，於諸定中最為第一。
問曰：是三昧，何故無量無邊善根所成？
答曰：是三昧唯一切智人有，餘人所無，是故名為「金剛三昧」。
As for "every buddha's own constant tranquil wisdom": every buddha's own tranquil wisdom remains constantly unmoving, this very mindfulness constantly present within the mind. And why is this so? Because he knows before he acts, and, within whatever object he attends to, abides in conduct free of any doubt, having severed every affliction, having transcended every restless nature.
As the Buddha told Ānanda: "The Buddha, on this very night, attained unsurpassed, perfect, complete awakening; throughout every world, whether among devas, māras, Brahmās, ascetics, or brahmins, he taught and transformed them through the very path that exhausts suffering, completely and thoroughly, and then entered nirvāṇa without residue.
"Throughout this entire interval, the Buddha, toward every feeling, knew its arising, knew its abiding, knew its coming into being, and knew its cessation; toward every mark, every contact, every sensation, and every thought, he likewise knew its arising, its abiding, its coming into being, and its cessation." The evil māra, across seven years, day and night without rest, constantly pursued the Buddha, yet was unable to find any fault in him, never once beholding the Buddha's own mindfulness departing from this very tranquil wisdom.
This is called "every buddha's own constant abiding within the very conduct of tranquil wisdom."
As for "the dharma of never forgetting or losing anything": every buddha, having attained the dharma of non-retrogression, having penetrated the five treasuries of dharma, having attained the unsurpassed dharma, every buddha never forgets or loses anything. Whatever every buddha has attained beneath the bodhi tree, right up until entering nirvāṇa without residue, no deva, māra, Brahmā, ascetic, brahmin, or any other noble one is able to cause the Buddha to forget anything whatsoever. As the Sūtra of the Dharma Seal states: "What is attained at the very seat of awakening is called genuine attainment; there is no dharma more supreme than this." As the Sūtra of Hair Standing on End states: "Śāriputra! Should a person speak truthfully of one able never to forget or lose anything within the Dharma, they ought to say that this is me. And why is this so? I alone, and no other, am without any forgetting or loss whatsoever." This is called "every buddha's own freedom from forgetting anything within the Dharma."
As for "the vajra samādhi": every buddha's, every world-honored one's, own vajra samādhi is itself an unshared dharma, since nothing is able to destroy it, since it holds no obstruction whatsoever in any place, since it attains true, universal knowledge, since it destroys every obstruction of every dharma, since it penetrates every dharma equally, since it attains the very power of every meritorious benefit, and since it is the very supreme among every meditative concentration. Since nothing is able to destroy it, it is therefore called the "vajra samādhi"; just as nothing whatsoever is able to break a vajra jewel, this samādhi is likewise so. Since there exists no dharma able to destroy it, it is therefore called the "vajra samādhi."
Question: Why, then, is it unable to be destroyed?
Answer: Because it holds no obstruction whatsoever in any place, just as Śakra's own vajra weapon holds no place of obstruction — this very samādhi is likewise so.
Question: Why is this samādhi called "unobstructed in every place"?
Answer: Because it rightly penetrates every dharma. Every buddha, abiding within this samādhi, is entirely able to penetrate every dharma subsumed within the five treasuries of the past, the present, the future, what transcends the three times, and what cannot be expressed — it is for this reason that it is called "unobstructed in every place."
Should every buddha, abiding within this samādhi, fail to penetrate any dharma whatsoever, this would be called "possessing obstruction"; yet this is genuinely not so — it is for this reason that it is called "unobstructed."
Question: Why does this samādhi penetrate every dharma?
Answer: Because this samādhi is able to open up every obstructing dharma — namely, the obstruction of the afflictions, the obstruction of concentration, and the obstruction of wisdom — being able to open all of these, it is thereby called able to penetrate every dharma.
Question: Why is this samādhi able to open up every obstruction, while every other samādhi is not?
Answer: This samādhi skillfully and equally penetrates two dharmas, being able to destroy the very mountain of the afflictions entirely, without any remainder; rightly and universally penetrating every dharma; skillfully attaining the unbreakable liberation of mind — it is for this reason that this samādhi is able to open up every obstruction.
Question: Why does this samādhi equally penetrate these two dharmas?
Answer: Through the very power attained by abiding within this samādhi, one is able to attain every merit whatsoever; no other samādhi possesses power such as this — it is for this reason that this samādhi is able equally to penetrate them.
Question: Why is it that, through the power attained by abiding within this samādhi, one is able to attain every merit?
Answer: This samādhi is the very foremost among every meditative absorption — it is for this reason that abiding within this samādhi, one is able to attain every merit.
Question: Why is this samādhi the very foremost among every meditative absorption?
Answer: This samādhi is accomplished through immeasurable, boundless roots of goodness — it is for this reason that it is the very foremost among every meditative absorption.
Question: Why, then, is this samādhi accomplished through immeasurable, boundless roots of goodness?
Answer: This samādhi is possessed by the omniscient one alone, and by no other being whatsoever — it is for this reason that it is called the "vajra samādhi."
The unbroken chain of eight consecutive questions, each asking "why" of the answer just given, is a distinctive argumentative technique this treatise uses sparingly — most often for its own most contested claims — walking backward through causes until it reaches bedrock: the vajra samādhi is unbreakable because it penetrates everything, penetrates everything because it opens every obstruction, opens every obstruction because it is foremost among concentrations, foremost because built from boundless roots of goodness, and finally because it belongs to the omniscient one alone. That final claim — that only the omniscient one possesses this samādhi — is precisely the premise the following chapter subjects to its most sustained challenge in the entire treatise.
The Challenge Begins: No Being Can Be Omniscient
四十不共法中難一切智人品第二十二
問曰：汝說「金剛三昧，唯一切智人有，餘人所無」，若是三昧但一切智人有，餘人無者，即無是三昧。何以故？無一切智人故。
何以故？所知法無量無邊，而智慧有量有邊，以此有量有邊智慧，不應知無量事。如今現閻浮提，水、陸眾生過諸算數。是眾生三品：若男、若女、非男非女。在胎、孩童、少壯、衰老，苦、樂等法。過去、未來、現在諸心、心數法，及諸善、惡業，已集、今集、當集，已受報、今受報、未受報。萬物生滅，及閻浮提中，山河、泉池，草木、叢林、根莖、枝葉、花果，所可知者，無有邊際；餘三天下亦如是。如四天下，三千大千世界物亦如是。如三千大千世界物，一切世界所可知物，亦如是。但是世間數尚無量、無邊，難可得知，何況諸閻浮提、諸世間中，眾生、非眾生諸物分？以是因緣當知：所可知物無量無邊故，無一切智者。
若謂「智慧有大力，於所知法中無障閡故，遍知一切。可知法如虛空遍在一切法中，是故應有一切智人」者，是事不然！智大力可爾。大智不能自知，如指端不自觸，是故無一切智。
若謂「更有智，能知是智」，是亦不然！何以故？有無窮過故。
智若自知、若以他知，二俱不然。若是智有無量力，以不自知故，不得言「有無量力」。是故無有能知一切法智，無知一切法智故，則無一切智者。何以故？一切智者，以智知一切法故。
復次，所知法無量無邊，若和合百千萬億智人，尚不能盡知，何況一人？是故無有一人能知一切法，無有一切智。
Challenging the Omniscient One Among the Forty Unshared Dharmas Chapter
Question: You have said that "the vajra samādhi is possessed by the omniscient one alone, and by no other being" — should this samādhi be possessed by the omniscient one alone, and by no other being at all, then this samādhi does not truly exist. And why is this so? Because no omniscient being exists at all.
And why is this so? Whatever is knowable is immeasurable and boundless, while wisdom itself is bounded and finite; through this bounded and finite wisdom, one ought not to be able to know immeasurable matters. Consider even now, throughout Jambudvīpa alone: the aquatic and terrestrial sentient beings there already exceed every count. These sentient beings are of three kinds — male, female, and neither male nor female. In the womb, as a child, in youthful vigor, in declining age, and every dharma of suffering and joy. Every mind and mental state of the past, the future, and the present, and every wholesome and unwholesome karma, already accumulated, now accumulating, or yet to be accumulated; whose fruit has already been undergone, is now being undergone, or has not yet been undergone. Every phenomenon's own arising and cessation, and, throughout Jambudvīpa, every mountain and river, spring and pool, grass and tree, forest and thicket, root and stem, branch and leaf, flower and fruit — whatever might be known of these has no boundary whatsoever; and the remaining three continents are likewise so. Just as with these four continents, so too with every object throughout the great trichiliocosm. Just as with every object throughout the great trichiliocosm, so too with whatever might be known throughout every world whatsoever. If the mere count of this world alone is already immeasurable and boundless, difficult indeed to know, how much more so, then, every object, whether sentient being or non-sentient thing, throughout every Jambudvīpa, throughout every world? Through this very cause and condition, one should know: since whatever might be known is immeasurable and boundless, there exists no omniscient being.
Should one claim: "Wisdom possesses great power, holding no obstruction whatsoever toward whatever is knowable, thereby knowing everything universally. Whatever is knowable pervades every dharma just as empty space itself does — it is for this reason that there ought to exist an omniscient being" — this matter is simply not so! Wisdom's own great power might well be granted. Yet great wisdom is unable to know itself, just as the very tip of a finger cannot touch itself — it is for this reason that no omniscient being exists.
Should one claim: "There exists some further wisdom, able to know this very wisdom" — this too is not so! And why is this so? Because this would give rise to an infinite regress.
Whether this wisdom knows itself, or is known through some other wisdom, in neither case does this hold. Should this very wisdom possess immeasurable power, yet be unable to know itself, one cannot then say it "possesses immeasurable power." It is for this reason that there exists no wisdom able to know every dharma; since there exists no wisdom able to know every dharma, there exists no omniscient being. And why is this so? Because "omniscient" means knowing every dharma through wisdom.
Furthermore, whatever is knowable is immeasurable and boundless; even should hundreds of thousands of myriads of koṭis of wise persons combine their own knowledge together, they would still be unable to know it fully — how much less, then, a single person alone? It is for this reason that there exists no single person able to know every dharma, and no omniscience exists at all.
This chapter opens the treatise's single most sustained philosophical debate, structured as a formal challenge-and-response spanning the rest of the fascicle: an opponent's objection runs uninterrupted for well over a hundred lines of source text before the text answers a single point of it. The finger-that-cannot-touch-its-own-tip argument against self-knowing wisdom is a genuinely difficult epistemological puzzle, one the treatise's own answer, still to come, must address directly rather than dismiss.
The Challenge Continues: Scriptures the Buddha Never Taught
若謂「不以遍知一切山河、眾生、非眾生故，名一切智人。但以盡知一切經書故，名一切智人」者，是亦不然！何以故？佛法中不說《韋陀》等經書義。若佛是一切智人者，應用《韋陀》等經書，而實不用，是故佛非一切智人。
又，四《韋陀羅經》，有量有限今世尚無盡能知者，況有盡知一切經書，是故無有一切智人。
復次，有經書能增長貪欲，歌舞音樂等，若一切智人知是事者，即有貪欲。是經書者是貪欲因緣，若有因必有果。若一切智人不知此事，則不名一切智人。
復次，有諸經書能助瞋恚，喜誑於人，所謂治世經書等。若知是事，則有瞋恚。何以故？有因必有果故。若不知則不名一切智人，是故知無一切智人。
復次，佛不必盡知未來世事。譬如我今難一切智人，佛無經書豫記：是人如是姓、如是家、在某處，以如是事難一切智人。若謂佛盡知，何以故不說是事？若說經者，經中應有，不說是事，是故知非一切智人。
復次，佛若盡知未來世事，應當豫知調達出家已破僧；若知者，不應聽出家。
復次，佛不知木機、激石。佛若豫知者，則不應於中經行。
復次，佛不知旃遮婆羅門女以婬欲謗。若佛先知，應告諸比丘，未來當有是事。
復次，有梵志嫉佛故，於餘處殺梵志女——孫陀羅，於祇洹塹中埋。佛不知是事，若知是者，應於諸梵志所救此女命。
至調達所推石下，不說婆羅門女、梵志女事，以不知故；當知佛不盡知未來世，是故非一切智人。
復次，佛入婆羅門聚落乞食空鉢而出，不能豫知魔時轉諸人心，乃至不得一食；佛若知者，則不應入婆羅門聚落。是故知「佛不盡知未來事」。
復次，阿闍世王欲害佛故，放守財醉象。佛不知故，入王舍城乞食，若豫知者，則不應入城。是故不知未來事，不知未來事故，則非一切智人。
復次，佛不知惡涅達多請佛因緣，即受其請，將諸比丘，詣韋羅闍國。是婆羅門忘先請故，使佛食馬麥。若佛豫知，則不應受請，三月食馬麥。是故知佛不知未來事，不知未來事故，則非一切智人。
復次，佛受須涅叉多羅為弟子故，則不知未來事。是人惡心堅牢、難化，不信佛語。佛若知者，云何受為弟子？受為弟子故，則不知未來事，不知未來事故，則非一切智人。復次，若佛是一切智人，則應防護未有犯罪者，當為結戒。以先不知結戒因緣，有作罪已，方乃結戒，則不知未來事。不知未來事故，則非一切智人。
Should one claim: "It is not through universally knowing every mountain, river, sentient being, and non-sentient thing that one is called omniscient — it is solely through fully knowing every scripture that one is called omniscient" — this too is not so! And why is this so? Within the Buddhadharma, the meaning of the Vedas and similar scriptures is never expounded. Should the Buddha be truly omniscient, he ought to make use of the Vedas and similar scriptures — yet he genuinely makes no use of them — it is for this reason that the Buddha is not omniscient.
And further, the four Vedāṅga scriptures alone, bounded and finite as they are, remain, even now, something no one is able fully to know — how much less, then, could anyone fully know every scripture whatsoever? It is for this reason that no omniscient being exists.
Furthermore, there exist scriptures able to increase craving — songs, dances, and music, and the like — should the omniscient one know this very matter, he would thereby possess craving himself. These very scriptures are themselves the cause and condition of craving; where there exists a cause, there must exist a fruit. Should the omniscient one fail to know this very matter, he could not be called omniscient at all.
Furthermore, there exist scriptures able to assist anger, delighting in deceiving others — namely, treatises on statecraft, and the like. Should he know this very matter, he would thereby possess anger himself. And why is this so? Because where there exists a cause, there must exist a fruit. Should he fail to know it, he could not be called omniscient — it is for this reason that one knows no omniscient being exists.
Furthermore, the Buddha does not necessarily know every matter of the future in full. Consider, for example, my own present challenge to the omniscient one — the Buddha has no scripture predicting in advance that a certain person, of such a family, of such a household, in such a place, would challenge the omniscient one with a matter such as this. Should one claim the Buddha knows this fully, why, then, has he never spoken of this very matter? Were it truly recorded in a sūtra, this sūtra ought to contain it; since it never speaks of this very matter, one thereby knows he is not omniscient.
Furthermore, should the Buddha fully know every matter of the future, he ought to have known in advance that Devadatta, once gone forth from home, would break apart the saṅgha; had he known this, he ought not to have permitted his going forth.
Furthermore, the Buddha did not know of the wooden device and the flung stone. Had the Buddha known this in advance, he ought not to have walked in meditation at that very place.
Furthermore, the Buddha did not know that the brahmin woman Cañcā would slander him with the charge of sexual misconduct. Had the Buddha known this beforehand, he ought to have told the monks that this would occur in the future.
Furthermore, there was a brahmin ascetic who, out of envy toward the Buddha, murdered the brahmin girl Sundarī elsewhere, and buried her within a trench at Jetavana. The Buddha did not know of this very matter; had he known of it, he ought to have rescued this girl's own life from those very brahmin ascetics.
When the stone was rolled down upon him at the place where Devadatta lay in wait, he spoke nothing of either the brahmin woman's or the brahmin girl's own matter, since he did not know of them; one should thereby know that the Buddha does not fully know the future, and is therefore not omniscient.
Furthermore, when the Buddha entered a brahmin settlement to beg for food and emerged with an empty bowl, he was unable to know in advance that māra would, at that very time, turn the minds of every person there, so that he obtained not even a single meal; had the Buddha known this, he ought not to have entered that brahmin settlement. It is for this reason that one knows "the Buddha does not fully know matters of the future."
Furthermore, King Ajātaśatru, wishing to harm the Buddha, released an intoxicated elephant kept for guarding treasure. The Buddha, not knowing of this, entered the city of Rājagṛha to beg for food; had he known this in advance, he ought not to have entered the city. It is for this reason that he does not know matters of the future, and, not knowing matters of the future, he is not omniscient.
Furthermore, the Buddha did not know the true circumstances of the wicked brahmin Verañjā's invitation, and thereupon accepted this invitation, leading the assembled monks to the country of Verañjā. This brahmin, having forgotten his own earlier invitation, caused the Buddha to eat horse fodder for three months. Had the Buddha known this in advance, he ought not to have accepted this invitation, and eaten horse fodder for three months. It is for this reason that one knows the Buddha does not know matters of the future, and, not knowing matters of the future, he is not omniscient.
Furthermore, the Buddha, in accepting Sunakṣatra as his own disciple, thereby did not know matters of the future. This person's own evil mind was firm and unyielding, difficult indeed to transform, never believing the Buddha's own words. Had the Buddha known this, how could he have accepted him as a disciple? Through accepting him as a disciple, he thereby did not know matters of the future; not knowing matters of the future, he is not omniscient. Furthermore, should the Buddha be truly omniscient, he ought to have guarded in advance against one who had not yet committed any offense, establishing a precept for them beforehand. Since he did not know in advance the very cause and condition requiring a precept, and only established the precept after an offense had already been committed, he thereby did not know matters of the future; not knowing matters of the future, he is not omniscient.
Every incident the objector cites here is drawn from the Buddha's own recorded biography as preserved across the canon — Devadatta's schism, the assassination attempt by a rolled stone, Cañcā's and Sundarī's slanders, the empty almsbowl, the drunken elephant Nālāgiri, the three months of horse fodder at Verañjā, and the incorrigible disciple Sunakṣatra — rather than invented hypotheticals. The rhetorical force of the objection depends entirely on this: these are not speculative counterexamples but events the tradition itself records as having actually happened, each apparently showing the Buddha caught by surprise. The treatise's own answer, beginning in the sections that follow, must therefore reckon with its own scriptural record rather than merely assert omniscience by definition.
The Challenge Concludes: Contradiction, Self-Praise, and Unanswered Questions
復次，佛法但以出家受戒歲數，處在上座，恭敬禮拜。不以耆年、貴族、諸家、功德、智慧、多聞、禪定、果、斷、神通為大。若是一切智者，應以耆年、貴族、諸家、功德、智慧、多聞、禪定、果、斷、神通為大，供養恭敬。若如是者，名為善制。
歲數者，受戒年數，如五歲道人，禮六歲者。
貴族者，世間有四品眾生——婆羅門、剎利、韋舍、首陀羅。首陀羅應恭敬韋舍、剎利、婆羅門，韋舍應恭敬剎利、婆羅門，剎利應恭敬婆羅門。
諸家者，工巧家、商估家、居士家、長者家、大臣家、王家等。
於諸家中，其小家應恭敬大家；如是於貧賤中出家者，應恭敬富貴中出家者。
功德者，毀戒人應恭敬禮拜持戒者，持戒者不應禮毀戒者；不行十二頭陀者，應禮行十二頭陀者；不具足行頭陀者，應禮具足行頭陀者。
智慧者，無智慧人應禮敬有智慧者。多聞者，少聞人應禮多聞者。不多誦者，應禮敬多誦者。
果者，須陀洹應禮敬斯陀含，如是展轉應禮阿羅漢。一切凡夫應禮得果者。
斷者，少斷結使及未斷者，應禮多斷者。神通者，若未具神通者，應禮具神通者。
佛若如是次第善說供養恭敬法者，是為上說，而實不爾。是故知非一切智人。
復次，佛尚不能知現在事。汝若謂我「云何知佛不知現在事」者，今當說之：有眾生結使薄者、無業障者、離八難者、堪行深法者、能成正法者，而佛不知。佛成道已，初欲說法，生如是疑：「我所得法甚深、玄遠、微妙、寂滅、難知難解，唯有智者可以內知；世間眾生貪著世事，此中除斷一切煩惱、滅愛、厭離，第一難見。若我說法，眾生不解，徒自疲苦。」
生如是疑，而實眾生有薄結使，無業障者、有離八難者、堪行深法者、能成正法者，佛不能知如是眾生。是故當知不知現在事。
又作是念：「昔我苦行，五比丘供養執侍，應先利益。今在何處？」作是念已，時，有天告：「今在波羅捺，鹿野苑中。」是故當知：佛不知現在事。不知現在事故，則非一切智人。
復次，佛得道已，受請說法，而作是念：「我今說法，誰應先聞？」即復念言：「欝頭藍弗，此人利智，易可開悟」。爾時，此人先已命終，而佛訪求。時，天告言：「昨夜命終。」佛又思惟迴心欲度阿羅邏。天復白言：「是人亡來七日」。
若佛是一切智者，先應知此諸人命終，而實不知。不知過去事，故則不名一切智人。一切智人，法應度可度者，不可則置。
復次，佛處處有疑語，如巴蓮弗城，是事當以三因緣壞：若水、若火、若內人與外人謀。
若佛是一切智人者，則不應有疑惑語，是故知非一切智人。
復次，佛問比丘：「汝等聚會為說何事？」如是等問。若一切智人者，則不應問如是等事；以問他故，非一切智人。
復次，佛自稱讚身，毀訾他人，如《經》中說：「佛告阿難：『唯我一人，第一無比，無與等者。』告諸比丘：『尼犍子等，是弊惡人，成就五邪法。諸尼犍子等，無信、無慚、無愧、寡聞懈怠、少念薄智。』」又說梵志、尼犍諸外道弟子等，諸不可事。
若自稱讚，毀訾他人，世人尚愧，何況一切智人！有此事故，非一切智人。
復次，佛經始終相違，如《經》中說：「諸比丘！我新得道。」又言：「我得往古諸佛所得道。」世間有智，尚離終始相違，何況出家一切智人，而有相違。以終始相違故，當知非一切智人。
是故汝說「金剛三昧，唯一切智人得」，是事不然！無一切智人故，一切智三昧亦不成。
Furthermore, within the Buddhadharma, precedence and seating among the elders and reverent prostration toward them are determined solely by the count of years since ordination and receiving the precepts. They are never determined by advanced age, noble lineage, family standing, merit, wisdom, vast learning, meditative concentration, the fruit attained, what has been severed, or spiritual power. Should the Buddha be truly omniscient, he ought to have established advanced age, noble lineage, family standing, merit, wisdom, vast learning, meditative concentration, the fruit attained, what has been severed, and spiritual power as the very basis for reverence and offering. Only this would be called a well-devised system.
As for "years," this refers to the count of years since receiving the precepts — as when a practitioner of five years bows to one of six years.
As for "noble lineage," this world contains four classes of sentient being: brahmin, kṣatriya, vaiśya, and śūdra. The śūdra ought to revere the vaiśya, the kṣatriya, and the brahmin; the vaiśya ought to revere the kṣatriya and the brahmin; the kṣatriya ought to revere the brahmin.
As for "family standing," this refers to a family of craftsmen, a family of merchants, a householder's family, an elder's family, a minister's family, a royal family, and the like.
Among every such family, the lesser family ought to revere the greater family; in just this way, one who has gone forth from home from among the poor and lowly ought to revere one who has gone forth from home from among the wealthy and noble.
As for "merit," one who has broken the precepts ought to revere and prostrate before one who upholds the precepts, while one who upholds the precepts ought never to prostrate before one who has broken them; one who does not practice the twelve ascetic observances ought to revere one who does practice them; one who does not fully practice these ascetic observances ought to revere one who practices them fully.
As for "wisdom," one lacking wisdom ought to revere one who possesses wisdom. As for "learning," one of little learning ought to revere one of vast learning. One who does not recite extensively ought to revere one who recites extensively.
As for "the fruit attained," a stream-enterer ought to revere a once-returner, and, proceeding in this same way, ought to revere an arhat in turn. Every ordinary being ought to revere one who has attained a fruit.
As for "what has been severed," one who has severed few fetters, or none at all, ought to revere one who has severed many. As for "spiritual power," one not yet complete in spiritual power ought to revere one who is complete in it.
Had the Buddha expounded this very system of reverence and offering, ordered in this way, this would be considered a supreme teaching — yet he genuinely did not do so. It is for this reason that one knows he is not omniscient.
Furthermore, the Buddha is unable even to know matters of the present. Should you ask me: "How do I know the Buddha does not know matters of the present?" — I shall now explain it. There existed sentient beings whose own fetters were slight, without any karmic obstruction, free of the eight difficulties, able to practice a profound dharma, able to accomplish the true Dharma — and yet the Buddha did not know of them. Once the Buddha had accomplished the path, at the very moment he first wished to expound the Dharma, he gave rise to a doubt such as this: "The dharma I have attained is exceedingly profound, deep and far-reaching, subtle and sublime, tranquil cessation itself, difficult to know and difficult to understand — only the wise are able to know it inwardly for themselves; the sentient beings of this world are attached to worldly affairs, and, within this dharma, the severing of every affliction, the extinguishing of craving, and weariness and renunciation are the very foremost of difficulties to behold. Should I expound this Dharma, sentient beings would fail to understand it, and I would merely exhaust and trouble myself for nothing."
He gave rise to this very doubt, and yet there genuinely existed sentient beings whose own fetters were slight, without any karmic obstruction, free of the eight difficulties, able to practice a profound dharma, able to accomplish the true Dharma — and the Buddha was unable to know of sentient beings such as this. It is for this reason that one should know he did not know matters of the present.
He further reflected thus: "In the past, during my own ascetic practice, the five monks made offering to me and attended upon me — I ought to benefit them first. Where are they now?" Having reflected thus, at that time, a deva informed him: "They are now at Vārāṇasī, within the Deer Park." It is for this reason that one should know: the Buddha did not know matters of the present. Not knowing matters of the present, he is not omniscient.
Furthermore, once the Buddha had attained the path, having been invited to expound the Dharma, he reflected thus: "Whom, now that I expound the Dharma, ought to hear it first?" He then further reflected: "Udraka Rāmaputra — this person's own wisdom is sharp, easily awakened." At that very time, this person had already passed away, and yet the Buddha sought to inquire after him. At that time, a deva informed him: "He passed away just last night." The Buddha further reflected, turning his mind to wish to liberate Ārāḍa Kālāma instead. The deva further informed him: "This person has already been dead for seven days."
Should the Buddha be truly omniscient, he ought to have known beforehand that these persons had passed away — yet he genuinely did not know this. Not knowing this matter of the past, he cannot be called omniscient. The omniscient one, according to the Dharma, ought to liberate whoever is capable of being liberated; should this be impossible, this alone ought to be set aside.
Furthermore, the Buddha, in various places, has spoken words of uncertainty — as with the city of Pāṭaliputra, that this very place would one day be destroyed through three possible causes and conditions: whether by flood, by fire, or through a plot between those within and those outside it.
Should the Buddha be truly omniscient, he ought never to have spoken words of uncertainty such as this — it is for this reason that one knows he is not omniscient.
Furthermore, the Buddha asked the monks: "What matter were you gathered together to discuss?" — and questions such as this. Should he be truly omniscient, he ought never to have asked about matters such as this; through asking another, he is thereby shown not to be omniscient.
Furthermore, the Buddha has praised himself while disparaging others, as the sūtra states: "The Buddha told Ānanda: 'I alone am the very foremost, beyond compare, with none equal to me.'" And he told the monks: "The Nirgrantha ascetics and the like are corrupt, evil persons, accomplished in five wrongful dharmas. These Nirgrantha ascetics are without faith, without conscience, without shame, of little learning, indolent, of little mindfulness, and of shallow wisdom." He further spoke, of the brahmin ascetics, the Nirgranthas, and every disciple of an outside path, of matters unfit to be spoken.
Should one praise oneself while disparaging others, even an ordinary person in this world would feel shame at this — how much more so, then, the omniscient one! Since a matter such as this exists, he is not omniscient.
Furthermore, the Buddha's own sūtras contradict themselves from beginning to end, as the sūtra states: "Monks! I have newly attained the path." Yet he also states: "I have attained the very path attained by every buddha of ages past." Even a wise person in this world avoids contradicting their own beginning and end — how much more so, then, ought the omniscient renunciant avoid it, and yet here there exists this very contradiction. Through this very contradiction between beginning and end, one should know he is not omniscient.
It is for this very reason that your claim, "the vajra samādhi is attained by the omniscient one alone," does not hold! Since no omniscient being exists, this samādhi of the omniscient one likewise cannot be established.
The objector's case closes here with its own strongest rhetorical move saved for last — an apparent self-contradiction within the Buddha's own recorded words, "newly attained" against "attained what every past buddha attained." The treatise has deliberately let the full weight of the objection stand on its own, without interruption, before beginning its response — the answer follows immediately below, point by point.
The Answer Begins: Boundless Wisdom for Boundless Objects
答曰：汝莫說此，佛實是一切智人。何以故？凡一切法有五法藏，所謂過去法、未來法、現在法、出三世法、不可說法，唯佛如實遍知是法。
如汝先難「所知法無量無邊，故無一切智人」者，我今當答：若所知法無量無邊，智亦無量無邊。以「無量無邊智」知「無量無邊法」，無咎。
若謂「是知，亦應以智知，是則無窮」者，今當答：法應以智知，智如世間人言：「我是智者，我是無智者；我是麁智者，我是細智者。」以是因緣，以智知智故，則無無窮過。如以現在智知過去智，則盡知一切法，無有遺餘。
復次，如人數他通身為十，知亦如是。自知亦知他，則無有咎，如燈自照亦照他。
如汝所說：「和合百千萬億智人，尚不能盡知一切法，何況一人知」者，是事不然！何以故？一切智慧人能知眾事；雖復眾多無有智慧，不能有所知。如百千盲人，不任作導；一人有眼，任為導師。是故汝以一人為難，雖復多智，於佛則無智。是事不然！
Answer: Speak no further of this — the Buddha is genuinely omniscient. And why is this so? Every dharma whatsoever falls entirely within five treasuries of dharma — namely, the dharma of the past, the dharma of the future, the dharma of the present, the dharma that transcends the three times, and the dharma that cannot be expressed — and the Buddha alone truly and universally knows this entire dharma.
As for your earlier challenge, that "whatever is knowable is immeasurable and boundless, and therefore no omniscient being exists," I shall now answer it: should whatever is knowable be immeasurable and boundless, wisdom itself is likewise immeasurable and boundless. Through this very "immeasurable, boundless wisdom" knowing this "immeasurable, boundless dharma," there is no fault in this at all.
Should one claim, "this very knowing itself ought also to be known through some further wisdom, and this would then continue without end," I shall now answer it: a dharma ought to be known through wisdom, and wisdom, just as an ordinary person in this world might say: "I am wise, I am unwise; I am of coarse wisdom, I am of fine wisdom." Through this very cause and condition, since wisdom is able to know wisdom itself, there is no fault of infinite regress at all. Just as present wisdom is able to know past wisdom, one thereby comes to know every dharma entirely, with nothing left over.
Furthermore, just as a person who counts another's own body parts as ten fingers thereby also knows their own, knowing works in just this same way. Knowing oneself and knowing another both occur together, with no fault in this whatsoever — just as a lamp illuminates itself while also illuminating what is around it.
As for what you have said, that "even should hundreds of thousands of myriads of koṭis of wise persons combine their own knowledge, they would still be unable to know every dharma fully — how much less, then, a single person alone" — this matter is simply not so! And why is this so? One who is truly and fully wise is able to know every matter; though there may be a great many people, if they lack this very wisdom, they remain unable to know anything at all. Just as a hundred thousand blind persons are unfit to serve as a guide, while a single person possessing sight is fit to serve as this very guide. It is for this reason that your own challenge, framed around a single person, though there may be many who possess partial wisdom, mistakes what the Buddha's own wisdom truly is. This matter is simply not so!
The lamp simile directly answers the finger-that-cannot-touch-its-own-tip objection from the previous section by supplying a genuine counterexample: a lamp's own light does illuminate the lamp itself along with everything else in the room, so self-reference is not universally impossible, only impossible for certain kinds of things (a finger's tactile contact) and not others (light's own illumination). The blind-guides analogy then reframes the "many minds combined still can't know everything" objection — the problem was never insufficient quantity of ordinary wisdom, but the qualitative absence of the one thing (sight, or true omniscience) that quantity can never substitute for.
Why the Vedas Contain No True Liberation
汝謂「佛不說《韋陀》等外經，故非一切智人」者，今當答：《韋陀》中無善寂滅法，但有種種諸戲論事。諸佛所說，皆為善寂滅故。佛雖知《韋陀》等經，不能令人得善寂滅，是故不說。
問曰：「《韋陀》中亦有善寂滅解脫說，世間先皆幽闇都無所有，初有大人出現如日，若有見者得度死難，更有餘導。又說：人身小則神小，人大則神大。身為神宅，常處其中。若以智慧，開解神縛，則得解脫。是故當知，《韋陀》中有寂滅解脫。」
答曰：無是事也！何以故？《韋陀》經中有「四顛倒」：世間無常，而別有常世間。如說一作天祠墮落，再亦墮落，三作則不墮，是為無常中「常顛倒」。
世間苦，而說有常樂處，是為苦中「樂顛倒」。
又說我神轉為子，願使壽百歲。子是他身，云何為我？是為無我中「我顛倒」。
說身清淨，第一無比。金銀珍寶，無及身者，是名無淨中「淨顛倒」。
顛倒則無實，無實云何有寂滅？是故《韋陀》中無善寂滅法。
問曰：《韋陀》中說「能知韋陀者清淨安隱」，云何言「無善寂滅法」？
答曰：知《韋陀》者，雖說安隱，非畢竟解脫。於異身中，生解脫想，是說因長壽天，說為解脫。是故《韋陀》中，實無解脫。
復次，《韋陀》中，略說有三義：一者、呪願，二者、稱讚，三者、法則。
「呪願」名為令我得妻子、牛馬、金銀珍寶。
「稱讚」名為汝火神，頭黑、頸赤、體黃，常在眾生五大中。
「法則」名為是事應作，是不應作。
如從昴星初受火法，而實呪願、稱讚、法則無有寂滅解脫。何以故？貪著世樂，然蘇呪願，無真智慧，不斷煩惱，何有解脫？
As for your claim that "the Buddha does not expound the Vedas and similar outside scriptures, and is therefore not omniscient," I shall now answer it: within the Vedas there exists no dharma of true tranquil cessation whatsoever — there exists only every kind of idle, conceptual proliferation. Whatever every buddha expounds is, in every case, expounded for the sake of true tranquil cessation. Though the Buddha knows the Vedas and similar scriptures fully, they are unable to cause a person to attain this true tranquil cessation — it is for this reason that he does not expound them.
Question: "Within the Vedas there is likewise an account of true tranquil cessation and liberation — that this world was, in its very beginning, entirely dark and obscure, possessing nothing whatsoever, until a great person first appeared like the sun, so that whoever beheld him was able to cross beyond the peril of death, with a further guide besides. And it further states: when the human body is small, the soul is small; when the body is large, the soul is large. The body serves as the soul's own dwelling, constantly abiding within it. Should one, through wisdom, open up and release the soul's own bondage, one thereby attains liberation. It is for this reason that one should know that the Vedas do contain tranquil cessation and liberation."
Answer: No such thing exists at all! And why is this so? Within the Vedic scriptures there exist "four inversions": this world is impermanent, and yet they hold that there separately exists some permanent world. As it is said: perform the fire-sacrifice to the devas once, and one still falls; perform it twice more, and one still falls; only upon the third performance does one no longer fall — this is the very "inversion of permanence" within what is genuinely impermanent.
This world is suffering, and yet they speak of some place of constant joy — this is the very "inversion of joy" within what is genuinely suffering.
They further state that one's own soul is reborn as one's own son, wishing that this son might live to a hundred years. Yet this son is another's own body entirely — how could this possibly be "myself"? This is the very "inversion of self" within what is genuinely without self.
They state that the body is pure, the very foremost, beyond compare. Gold, silver, and every precious jewel do not equal the body itself — this is called the very "inversion of purity" within what is genuinely without purity.
Where there is inversion, there is no reality whatsoever; and where there is no reality, how could there possibly be tranquil cessation? It is for this reason that the Vedas contain no dharma of true tranquil cessation.
Question: The Vedas state that "whoever is able to know the Vedas attains purity and peace" — how, then, can you say they contain "no dharma of true tranquil cessation"?
Answer: One who knows the Vedas, though it speaks of attaining peace, does not thereby attain ultimate liberation. Within some other body, one gives rise to a mere thought of liberation — this speaks only of a long-lived heavenly rebirth attained through this very cause, and calls this "liberation." It is for this reason that the Vedas, in truth, contain no genuine liberation whatsoever.
Furthermore, the Vedas, to speak briefly, contain three kinds of content: first, incantations and prayers; second, praise and eulogy; third, rules and regulations.
"Incantations and prayers" refers to seeking to obtain a wife and children, cattle and horses, gold, silver, and precious jewels.
"Praise and eulogy" refers to praising the fire-deity — his own head black, his own neck red, his own body yellow, constantly present within the five elements of every sentient being.
"Rules and regulations" refers to what ought to be done, and what ought not to be done.
Just as one first receives the fire-ritual from the star Kṛttikā, in truth these incantations and prayers, this praise and eulogy, and these rules and regulations contain no tranquil cessation or liberation whatsoever. And why is this so? Craving and clinging to worldly pleasure, burning ghee while reciting incantations and prayers — lacking genuine wisdom, never severing the afflictions — how could there possibly be liberation in this?
The "four inversions" (顛倒) named here — mistaking the impermanent for permanent, suffering for joy, the selfless for self, and the impure for pure — form one of the most widely used doctrinal frameworks across the entire Buddhist canon for diagnosing wrong view, applied elsewhere throughout this treatise to ordinary ignorance and here turned specifically against the Vedic tradition's own claims to liberation. The argument's structure is worth noting: it does not deny that the Vedas promise peace and reward, only that what they promise, examined closely, turns out to be another form of the very inversions Buddhist practice exists to see through.
Priority Is Not Truth, and Knowing Without Practicing
問曰：《韋陀》法自古有之，第一可信；汝言「無善寂滅，故不可信」者，是事不然！何以故？佛法近乃出世，《韋陀》自古久遠，常在世間。是故古法可信，近法不可信。汝言「《韋陀》中無善寂滅法」，是事不然！
答曰：時不可信——無明先出，正智後出；邪見先出，正見後出，不可以無明、邪見先出故「可信」，正智、正見後出「不可信」。如先有污泥，後有蓮花；先有病，後有藥。如是不可以在先出者為貴，是故《韋陀》先出，佛法後出，謂不可信者，是事不然！
復次，過去錠光等諸佛，皆先出世，其法則古出，《韋陀》是後出。若汝以先久為貴者，此諸佛及法，則應是貴。
問曰：《韋陀》不能作善寂滅，是故佛法中不說；若佛知不能作寂滅，何用知為？若不知，則非一切智人；二俱有過。
答曰：汝語非也，佛先知《韋陀》不能善寂滅，故不說、亦不修行。
問曰：若佛知《韋陀》無有利益故，而說不修習者，何用知為？
答曰：大智之人應悉分別是正道、是邪道；欲令無量人眾度險惡道故，行於正道。
譬如導師善分別邪道、正道，佛亦如是，既自得出生、老、死險道，亦復欲令眾生出，故善知八真聖道，亦知《韋陀》等邪險惡道；為離邪惡道故，行於正道故，但知而不說。
猶如農夫為穀種植，至秋收穫，亦得草䴰；佛亦如是，為無上道，故勤行精進得菩提道，亦知《韋陀》等諸邪道，是故無咎。
如汝先說：「無人能有具知四《韋陀》」者，此難不然！
世間人各有念力，有人一日能誦五偈、有誦百偈、有誦二百偈。
若人一日不誦十偈，則謂：無能誦百偈、出百偈者，此非實語。
汝等不能盡知故，便言「都無智者」，若人見一人不能度河，便言「無能度者」，是人不名正說，何以故？自有餘大力者能度，此亦如是。設使餘人不能盡知，一切智者知之何咎？
復次，脾娑仙人皆讀《韋陀》，亦應成一切智；若有盡讀《韋陀》，何以言「無一切智」？
Question: The teaching of the Vedas has existed since ancient times, and is therefore the very foremost, most credible teaching; your claim that "it contains no true tranquil cessation, and is therefore not credible" simply does not hold! And why is this so? The Buddhadharma has only recently appeared in this world, while the Vedas have existed since remote antiquity, constantly present within this world. It is for this reason that an ancient teaching is credible, while a recent teaching is not credible. Your claim that "the Vedas contain no dharma of true tranquil cessation" simply does not hold!
Answer: Mere timing is no basis for credibility — ignorance appears first, and right wisdom appears afterward; wrong view appears first, and right view appears afterward. One cannot, on the grounds that ignorance and wrong view appeared first, call them "credible," while right wisdom and right view, appearing afterward, are "not credible." Just as filthy mud exists first, and the lotus flower afterward; just as illness exists first, and medicine afterward. In just this way, one cannot take whatever appeared first as the more valuable — it is for this reason that, though the Vedas appeared first and the Buddhadharma appeared afterward, to call the Buddhadharma not credible on these grounds simply does not hold!
Furthermore, every buddha of ages past, such as Dīpaṃkara, appeared in this world long before, their own teaching thus appearing in remote antiquity, while the Vedas appeared only afterward. Should you value whatever appeared earliest and most enduringly, then these very buddhas and their own teaching ought to be considered the most valuable of all.
Question: Since the Vedas are unable to bring about true tranquil cessation, the Buddhadharma therefore does not expound them; yet should the Buddha already know they are unable to bring about this tranquil cessation, of what use is such knowledge to him at all? And should he not know this, he is not omniscient — either way, a fault remains.
Answer: What you have said does not hold. The Buddha, knowing beforehand that the Vedas are unable to bring about true tranquil cessation, for this very reason neither expounds them nor practices them.
Question: Should the Buddha know that the Vedas bring no benefit, and, on these grounds, neither expound nor practice them, of what use, then, is knowing this at all?
Answer: A person of great wisdom ought to be able to distinguish fully between the right path and the wrong path; wishing to cause immeasurable multitudes of people to cross beyond a perilous, evil path, he himself practices the right path.
Just as a guide skillfully distinguishes the wrong path from the right path, the Buddha is likewise so — having himself already escaped the perilous path of birth, old age, and death, he further wishes to cause sentient beings to escape it as well; it is for this reason that he skillfully knows the eight-fold true and noble path, and likewise knows the Vedas and similar wrong, perilous, and evil paths. For the sake of departing from this wrong and evil path, and for the sake of practicing the right path, he merely knows it without expounding it.
Just as a farmer, planting grain, at the autumn harvest also obtains weeds along with it — the Buddha is likewise so: for the sake of the unsurpassed path, he diligently applies effort and attains the path of bodhi, and, along the way, likewise comes to know the Vedas and every such wrong path — there is thus no fault in this at all.
As for what you have earlier said, that "no one is able to fully know the four Vedas" — this challenge simply does not hold!
Every person in this world possesses their own particular power of memory — there are those able, within a single day, to recite five verses; some recite a hundred verses; some recite two hundred verses.
Should a person be unable, within a single day, to recite even ten verses, and thereupon claim that no one is able to recite a hundred verses, or produce a hundred verses, these would not be truthful words at all.
Since you yourselves are unable to know it fully, you thereupon claim that "there exists no one of such wisdom at all" — just as, should a person see one individual unable to cross a river, and thereupon claim "no one is able to cross it," this person could not be said to speak correctly. And why is this so? There naturally exist others of still greater strength who are able to cross it — this matter is likewise so. Even should other persons be unable to know it fully, what fault could there be in the omniscient one knowing it?
Furthermore, the ṛṣi sages who study the Vedas all read them in full — ought they not, then, likewise become omniscient? Should there already exist those who have read the Vedas in full, how, then, can you claim that "no omniscience exists at all"?
The mud-before-the-lotus and illness-before-medicine images dismantle the objector's appeal to seniority directly: something appearing earlier in time carries no inherent claim to greater truth or value, and may in fact be exactly what the later thing exists to remedy. The farmer's harvest simile that follows makes a complementary point about incidental knowledge — a farmer who sets out to grow grain and finds weeds alongside it has not thereby failed at farming, just as the Buddha's own comprehensive knowledge of wrong paths, acquired in the course of walking the right one, is not itself evidence that he endorses or teaches them.
Knowing a Cause Without Producing Its Fruit
若汝言「有經書能生貪欲、瞋恚」者，我今當答：若人欲長壽，應離死因緣；佛亦如是，欲斷一切眾生貪欲、瞋恚，應知貪欲、瞋恚因緣。
復次，如汝說「能知生貪欲、瞋恚經書，則有貪欲、瞋恚」者，無有是處也。佛雖知是，不用、不行，故無過咎。如人知死因緣則不死，若行死因緣則死，是事亦爾。
若汝說「不知未來事故，不名一切智」者，我今當答：此則非難。我等亦知有難一切智者，如《經》中說：「佛告諸比丘：凡夫無智，有三相：不應思而思、不應說而說、不應作而作。」是故皆已總說。汝等未來世凡夫，皆在其中。無利益故，何用分別說其名字等？
若謂「佛知有難，不豫答」者，亦不須此！今現四眾中，亦有善斷疑難者，今亦有能破諸難問者，何用先答？如汝今日現見比丘之中，能破婆羅門者，是故不須先答。
又，先時亦有答，散在眾《經》，人不能具知佛法故，不知處所。
Should you claim that "there exist scriptures able to give rise to craving and anger," I shall now answer it: should a person wish to live long, they ought to depart from the very cause and condition of death; the Buddha is likewise so — wishing to sever every sentient being's own craving and anger, he ought first to know the causes and conditions of craving and anger.
Furthermore, as for your claim that "one who knows scriptures able to give rise to craving and anger must therefore possess craving and anger themselves," this has no basis whatsoever. The Buddha, though he knows this, neither makes use of it nor practices it, and there is therefore no fault in this at all. Just as a person who knows the cause and condition of death does not thereby die, while one who practices the very cause and condition of death does die — this matter is likewise so.
Should you claim that "not knowing matters of the future means one cannot be called omniscient," I shall now answer it: this is no genuine challenge at all. We too already know that there exist those who would challenge the omniscient one, as the sūtra states: "The Buddha told the monks: the ordinary being, lacking wisdom, possesses three marks — thinking what ought not to be thought, speaking what ought not to be spoken, and doing what ought not to be done." It is for this reason that this has already been stated in full, in general terms. Every ordinary being of the future, including yourself, is already included within this very statement. Since there would be no benefit in it, of what use would it be to distinguish and name each and every such person individually?
Should one claim that "the Buddha knew there would be this challenge, and yet did not answer it in advance," this too is unnecessary! Even now, within the fourfold assembly, there exist those skillfully able to resolve doubts and difficulties, and there exist those able to refute every difficult question raised — of what use, then, would it be to answer them all in advance? Just as, even today, you yourself can see, among the monks, those able to refute a brahmin's own challenge — it is for this very reason that there is no need to answer every such challenge beforehand.
And further, an answer to this very matter has already been given at an earlier time, scattered throughout the various sūtras — it is only that people, being unable to fully know the entire Buddhadharma, do not know exactly where to find it.
The distinction drawn here — between knowing a cause and thereby producing its fruit — is the same logical move the treatise will use repeatedly through the rest of this debate: knowledge of the Vedas, knowledge of what gives rise to craving, even knowledge that an assassination attempt or a false accusation is coming, does not by itself compel any particular action in response. This separates omniscience (a state of knowing) from omnipotence or predetermined intervention (a compulsion to act on every piece of knowledge), which becomes essential to the specific biographical episodes the text answers next.
Devadatta, the Flung Stone, and Cañcā
若言「受調達出家」事，我今當答：謂「受調達出家，則非一切智人」者，是語不然；調達出家非佛所度。
問曰：若餘人度者，佛何以聽？
答曰：善惡各有時，不必出家便惡。調達出家之後，有持戒諸功德，是故出家無過。
復次，調達於十二年清淨持戒，誦六萬法藏；此果報者，當來不空，必有利益。
汝說「調達機關激石」者，我今當說：諸佛成就無殺法故，一切世間無能奪命者。
問曰：若成就不殺法者，何故迸石而來？
答曰：佛於先世，種壞身業，定報應受；示眾生業報不可捨，故現受，是故自來。
汝言旃遮女，佛不先說者，我今當答：以旃遮女故譏佛者，不能壞一切智人因緣。若佛先說「旃遮女當來謗我」者，旃遮女則不來。
復次，佛先世謗人罪業因緣，今必應受。
As for the matter of "accepting Devadatta's own going forth from home," I shall now answer it: the claim that "accepting Devadatta's going forth from home means he is not omniscient" simply does not hold — Devadatta's own going forth was not carried out by the Buddha himself.
Question: Should someone else have ordained him, why, then, did the Buddha permit it?
Answer: Good and evil each have their own proper time — going forth from home does not necessarily lead to evil. After Devadatta had gone forth, he possessed genuine merit through upholding the precepts — there was, for this reason, no fault in this very going forth.
Furthermore, Devadatta, across twelve years, purely upheld the precepts, and recited sixty thousand sections of the Dharma treasury — the fruit and recompense of this shall not be in vain in the future, and shall certainly bring some benefit.
As for your claim concerning "Devadatta's own mechanism that flung the stone," I shall now explain it: every buddha has accomplished the very dharma of never being killed — no being in any world whatsoever is able to take his own life.
Question: Should he have accomplished this very dharma of never being killed, why, then, did the stone come flying toward him at all?
Answer: The Buddha, in a former life, planted the very karma of harming a body, and this fixed recompense was certain to be undergone; to demonstrate to sentient beings that the fruit and recompense of karma cannot simply be discarded, he manifested undergoing it himself — it is for this reason that he came to that very place of his own accord.
As for your claim concerning Cañcā, that the Buddha did not speak of this beforehand, I shall now answer it: this mockery of the Buddha through Cañcā's own accusation is unable to undermine the very cause and condition of his omniscience. Had the Buddha spoken beforehand that "Cañcā shall come in the future to slander me," Cañcā would then never have come at all.
Furthermore, the karmic cause and condition of the Buddha's own past-life offense of slandering another must now, of necessity, be undergone.
The treatise's own answer to the flung stone is striking for what it concedes rather than denies: it does not claim the Buddha was unaware of the danger, but that he deliberately walked into it, to demonstrate to sentient beings that the fruit of karma, once planted, cannot simply be waved away even by a buddha's own supernormal power. This reframes apparent vulnerability as itself a teaching, and the Cañcā episode extends the same logic in reverse — had the Buddha announced the slander in advance, the very karmic debt requiring it to occur would have gone unpaid, since the accuser would never have come at all.
Sundarī, the Empty Bowl, and the Mad Elephant
汝說佛何以不遮孫陀利入祇洹事，我今當答：此事不能壞一切智人因緣：佛無有力令一切眾生盡作樂人。
又諸佛離一切諍訟，不自高身、不著持戒；是故不遮。
復次，佛先世業熟故，必應受七日謗。
又眾生見佛聞謗不憂、雪明不喜故，發無上道心，作是願言：「我等亦當得如是清淨心！」是故無咎。
汝先說「佛入婆羅門聚落，空鉢而出，非一切智人」者，今當答：佛不以飲食先觀人心，入聚落已，魔轉其意。
問曰：是事佛應先知「我入聚落，魔當轉人心。」
答曰：佛亦先知此事，為大利益眾生，諸佛非但以受人食故以為利益，度脫眾生。有以清淨心迎逆、敬禮、和顏瞻視——此皆大利，何必飲食。以種種門利益眾生，非空入聚落。
汝說「佛逆趣醉象」者，今當答：佛雖知此事，以因緣故往：以此醉象必應得度；又能障其害佛罪業。
復次，此象身如黑山，眾人見此低頭禮佛，皆起恭敬；以是因緣故，佛故往趣。
復次，佛趣此象，無有過失。若有惡事，可作此難。
汝難「至隨蘭若」者，為受先世業果報故。
As for your claim concerning why the Buddha did not prevent the matter of Sundarī entering Jetavana to be killed, I shall now answer it: this matter is unable to undermine the very cause and condition of his omniscience — the Buddha does not possess the power to make every sentient being a wholly benevolent person.
And further, every buddha departs entirely from all contention and dispute, never exalting himself above others, never clinging even to his own upholding of the precepts — it is for this reason that he did not intervene to prevent it.
Furthermore, the Buddha's own past-life karma had already ripened, and he was thus certain to undergo seven days of slander.
And further, sentient beings, seeing the Buddha remain free of sorrow upon hearing this slander, and free of elation once his innocence was cleared, thereupon gave rise to the unsurpassed mind of the path, making this very vow: "May we too attain a mind so pure as this!" It is for this reason that there is no fault in this at all.
As for your earlier claim that "the Buddha, entering a brahmin settlement, emerged with an empty bowl, and is therefore not omniscient," I shall now answer it: the Buddha does not, in advance, examine people's own minds merely for the sake of obtaining food; only once he had already entered the settlement did māra go on to turn their minds against him.
Question: The Buddha ought to have known this beforehand — that "should I enter this settlement, māra will turn these people's own minds."
Answer: The Buddha did indeed know this very matter beforehand, and, for the sake of greatly benefiting sentient beings, entered regardless — every buddha does not consider it a benefit solely to receive a person's own food, in liberating sentient beings. There are those who, with a pure mind, come forth to greet him, show reverence, and gaze upon him with a gentle countenance — this too is itself of great benefit, and need not be food at all. He benefits sentient beings through every kind of avenue, and did not enter this settlement in vain.
As for your claim concerning "the Buddha walking directly toward the intoxicated elephant," I shall now answer it: though the Buddha knew of this very matter, he went there nonetheless through a specific cause and condition — this very intoxicated elephant was certain to be liberated through this encounter; and further, this act was able to obstruct the very karmic offense of one who wished to harm the Buddha.
Furthermore, this elephant's own body was like a black mountain; when the assembled people beheld it lower its own head in reverence to the Buddha, they all gave rise to a mind of reverence themselves — it is through this very cause and condition that the Buddha deliberately went toward it.
Furthermore, there was no fault whatsoever in the Buddha going toward this elephant. Were there some genuine wrongdoing in it, this challenge might then be raised.
As for your challenge concerning "arriving at Verañjā," this occurred for the sake of undergoing the very fruit and recompense of a past-life karma.
The mad elephant Nālāgiri's own submission before the Buddha is one of the most frequently depicted scenes in early Buddhist art precisely because of the reversal it stages: an animal driven to violence by intoxication and royal malice instead kneels, and the crowd's own reaction — reverence spreading through the witnesses rather than mere relief at danger averted — is presented here as the actual point of the Buddha's approach, not a fortunate side effect of it. Each answer in this section follows the same shape established with the flung stone: apparent vulnerability turns out, on examination, to conceal a deliberate act of teaching or a karmic debt being paid, never a genuine gap in the Buddha's own foreknowledge.
Sunakṣatra, and the Precepts Already Given in Essence
汝說「畜須涅叉多羅為弟子」者，今當說：佛身、口、意、命，不須守護，無所畏故，聽為弟子。
復次，是人常近佛故，得見種種大神力，見諸天、龍、夜叉、乾闥婆、阿修羅等諸王來供養佛，請問種種甚深要法，心得清淨；心清淨故，得利益因緣，是故雖惡，聽為弟子。
問曰：此人於佛，多生惡心，是故不應聽為弟子。
答曰：若不聽為弟子，亦有惡心，是故聽為弟子，無咎。
汝說「先未作罪時，何以不制戒」，今當答：佛先結戒，說八聖道：正見、正思惟、正語、正業、正命、正精進、正念、正定。說是至涅槃道故，已說一切諸戒。
復次，佛說三學—善學戒、善學心、善學慧，當知已說一切諸戒。
復次，佛告諸比丘：「一切惡決定不應作。」是不名「先結戒」耶？
復次，佛說十善道：離殺、盜、婬、兩舌、惡罵、妄言、綺語、貪嫉、瞋恚、邪見，不名「先結戒」耶？
佛先十二年中，說一偈為布薩法；所謂：「一切惡莫作，一切善當行，自淨其志意，是則諸佛教。」是故當知先已結戒。
復次，佛說：「諸小惡因緣皆應當離。」如說：「離身諸惡行，亦離口諸惡，離意諸惡行，餘惡悉遠離。」如是說者，當知先已結戒。
復次，佛先已說：「諸守護法。」如說：「護身為善哉，能護口亦善，護意為善哉，護一切亦善；比丘護一切，得遠離諸惡。」如是說者，當知先已結戒。
復次，佛先說善相，如說：「手足勿妄犯，節言慎所行，當樂守定意，是名真比丘。」如是說者，當知先已結戒。
復次，說沙門法故，當知先已結戒，沙門有四法：一、於瞋不報，二、於罵默然，三、杖捶能受，四、害者忍之。
復次，佛說四念處：觀身、觀受、觀心、觀法，是涅槃道住處故，當知先已結戒。
若微小惡尚不聽，何況身、口惡業。如是等因緣，當知先已結戒。
如王者立制：「不應作惡！後有犯者，隨事輕重，作如是罪，如是治之。」佛亦如是：先總說戒，後有犯者，說其罪相；如有作惡者，教令懺悔：作如是罪，應如是懺——不見擯、滅擯、不共住等；成如是事故，後乃結戒。
《十住毘婆沙論》卷第十
As for your claim concerning "keeping Sunakṣatra as a disciple," I shall now explain it: the Buddha's own karma of body, speech, mind, and life requires no guarding whatsoever, being free of every fear — it was for this reason that he permitted him as a disciple.
Furthermore, this person, through constantly remaining near the Buddha, was able to witness spiritual power of every kind, beholding every deva, nāga, yakṣa, gandharva, and asura king coming to make offering to the Buddha, and inquiring after every kind of profound and essential dharma — his own mind thereby attained purity; through this very purity of mind, he obtained the causes and conditions of genuine benefit. It was for this reason that, though he was evil, the Buddha permitted him as a disciple.
Question: This person held, toward the Buddha, much evil intent — it was therefore improper to permit him as a disciple.
Answer: Had he not been permitted as a disciple, he would likewise still have held this very evil intent — it was for this reason that permitting him as a disciple carried no fault whatsoever.
As for your claim, "before any offense had yet been committed, why did he not establish the precept beforehand," I shall now answer it: the Buddha had already, from the very outset, established the precepts, in expounding the eightfold noble path: right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration. In expounding this very path leading to nirvāṇa, he had already expounded every precept in essence.
Furthermore, the Buddha expounded the threefold training — skillfully training in the precepts, skillfully training the mind, and skillfully training in wisdom — one should thereby know that he had already expounded every precept in essence.
Furthermore, the Buddha told the monks: "Every evil deed whatsoever ought never, under any circumstance, to be done." Is this not itself called "establishing the precepts beforehand"?
Furthermore, the Buddha expounded the ten wholesome paths: departing from killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, divisive speech, harsh speech, false speech, idle speech, craving and envy, anger, and wrong view — is this not itself called "establishing the precepts beforehand"?
The Buddha, during his own first twelve years, spoke a single verse as the very dharma of the poṣadha observance — namely: "Refrain from every evil deed; undertake every wholesome deed; purify one's own intent and mind — this alone is the teaching of every buddha." It is for this reason that one should know he had already established the precepts beforehand.
Furthermore, the Buddha stated: "Every cause and condition of even the smallest evil ought, in every case, to be departed from." As it is said: "Depart from every evil deed of the body, and further depart from every evil of speech; depart from every evil deed of the mind, and depart far from every other evil besides." Having spoken thus, one should know he had already established the precepts beforehand.
Furthermore, the Buddha had already, from the outset, spoken of "every dharma of guarding and protection." As it is said: "Guarding the body is itself excellent; being able to guard speech is likewise excellent; guarding the mind is itself excellent; guarding everything is likewise excellent; the monk who guards everything thereby departs far from every evil." Having spoken thus, one should know he had already established the precepts beforehand.
Furthermore, the Buddha had already spoken of the very marks of what is wholesome, as it is said: "Never wrongfully transgress with hand or foot; measure your own speech, and be careful in your own conduct; constantly delight in guarding a concentrated mind — this alone is called a genuine monk." Having spoken thus, one should know he had already established the precepts beforehand.
Furthermore, in expounding the very dharma of the ascetic, one should know he had already established the precepts beforehand — the ascetic possesses four dharmas: first, never repaying anger with anger; second, remaining silent when reviled; third, being able to bear the rod and the whip; fourth, patiently enduring one who does harm.
Furthermore, the Buddha expounded the four foundations of mindfulness — contemplating the body, contemplating feeling, contemplating the mind, and contemplating mental phenomena — since this is itself the very dwelling-place of the path to nirvāṇa, one should know he had already established the precepts beforehand.
Should even the smallest evil already be forbidden, how much more so, then, an evil karma of body or speech! Through causes and conditions such as these, one should know he had already established the precepts beforehand.
Just as a king establishes a decree: "One ought never to commit evil! Should there afterward be an offender, according to the gravity or lightness of the matter, this offense shall be committed, and shall be dealt with in such a way" — the Buddha is likewise so: he first expounded the precepts in their general essence, and only afterward, should there be an offender, spoke of the very mark of that particular offense; should there be one who has done evil, he taught them to repent — having committed such an offense, one ought to repent in such a way, whether through suspension without acknowledgment, suspension through extinction, or exclusion from communal life, and the like — it was only through matters such as these coming to pass that the specific precepts were established afterward.
Fascicle 10 of the Daśabhūmika-vibhāṣā Śāstra
The closing analogy resolves the entire "why establish precepts only after an offense occurs" objection with a single, everyday observation: a wise ruler's own general decree against wrongdoing precedes any specific statute detailing penalties, and the later, more particular rule does not indicate the ruler failed to anticipate wrongdoing — it indicates that general principles were already sufficient, and specific case law develops as specific cases actually arise. Paired with the earlier citation of the eightfold path, the threefold training, and the ten wholesome paths as the precepts "already established in essence," this closes the treatise's own defense of the Buddha's omniscience by relocating where that omniscience was actually expressed — not in a list of hypothetical future violations, but in principles comprehensive enough to have already covered them.
Fascicle 10 Complete
This closes Fascicle 10: the forty unshared dharmas of a buddha, from flying at will and transformation without limit through the vajra samādhi, and the treatise's most sustained debate in full — a complete case against the very possibility of omniscience, and the point-by-point answer to it, addressing self-knowing wisdom, the Vedas, and every named biographical episode from Devadatta to Sunakṣatra, closing with the precepts already given in essence long before any single offense required them to be stated by name.
Continue to Fascicle 11 →