Segment 26 / The Dharma-Body is non-FormSubhūti, what do you think? Can the Tathāgata be seen through the thirty-two marks?
Subhūti replies, “Yes indeed, yes indeed, the Tathāgata can be seen through the thirty-two marks.”
The Buddha says, “Subhūti, if the Tathāgata could be seen through the thirty-two marks, then a Wheel-Turning Holy King would be the Tathāgata.”
Subhūti says to the Buddha, “World-Honored One, as I understand the meaning of the Buddha’s teaching, the Tathāgata should not be seen through the thirty-two marks.”
At that time, the Buddha speaks this verse: “If one sees me through form, or seeks me through sound, such a person walks a wrong path
and cannot see the Tathāgata.”
The general meaning of this Segment is as follows: The Buddha asks Subhūti: “Subhūti, what do you think? Can the Tathāgata be seen through the Thirty-Two Marks?”
Subhūti replies:“Yes, indeed. The Tathāgata can be seen through the Thirty-Two Marks.”
The Buddha says:“Subhūti, if the Tathāgata can be seen through the Thirty-Two Marks, then a Wheel-Turning Holy King, who also possesses the Thirty-Two Marks, would be a Tathāgata.”
Subhūti says again:“World-Honored One, now I understand the meaning of what the Buddha has said. One should not see the Tathāgata through the Thirty-Two Marks.”
At that time, the World-Honored One speaks a verse:
“If one sees me through form,
or seeks me through sound,
such a person walks a wrong path,
and cannot see the Tathāgata.”
The dialogue between the Buddha and Subhūti in this Segment is very subtle. One must understand the point view from which they are engaging in this exchange; otherwise, we might wonder how could Subhūti have answered the Buddha’s question incorrectly.
Earlier in the sūtra, the Buddha and Subhūti had engaged in discussions concerning the Tathāgata’s bodily form multiple times. For instance, in Segment Five, the Buddha asks:“Subhūti, what do you think? Can the Tathāgata be seen through bodily form?” Subhūti replied, “No indeed, World-Honored One. The Tathāgata cannot be seen through bodily form. Why? Because the bodily form spoken of by the Tathāgata is not a true bodily form.”
The Buddha say to Subhūti, “All appearances are illusory. If one sees all appearances as non-appearances, then one sees the Tathāgata.”
In Segment Thirteen, “Subhūti, what do you think? Can the Tathāgata be seen through the Thirty-Two Marks?” Subhūti replies, “No, World-Honored One. Why not? Because the Thirty-Two Marks spoken of by the Tathāgata are not non-marks—they are thus called the Thirty-Two Marks.”
From the preceding scriptures, we can see that Subhuti’s responses in all previous instances were “no,” indicating that one should not perceive the Tathagata through any specific physical form. But now, why is this Segment when the Buddha Asks “Subhuti, what do you think? Can the Tathagata be seen through the thirty-two marks?” Subhuti replies: “Yes, World-Honored One, the Tathagata can be seen through the thirty-two marks.”
For at this moment, the Buddha abides in the Tathāgata’s realm of true emptiness, expounding the ultimate truth to him. In the Segment Twenty-First, we see the Buddha negate Subhūti’s assertion about the existence of sentient beings, declaring that ‘sentient beings’ is merely a provisional designation.
In Segments Twenty-Two through Twenty-Four, as Subhūti poses questions, the Buddha reveals that the “unsurpassed, complete equal and complete awareness” is the equality that clings to no forms whatsoever, and the mind with non-attainment. Then in Segment Twenty-Five, the Buddha negates even the existence of ordinary beings, stating that the very concept of “ordinary beings” too is but a provisional designation.
Through these Segments of dialogue, the Buddha is in fact guiding the disciples to relinquish all attachment to appearances, to cast aside even the conceptual labels of “ordinary beings” or “sentient beings”. At this stage, they must enter the Tathāgata’s realm of true emptiness from the perspective of a “Dharma listener”. Here, no duality can remain: neither “hearer” and “what is heard,” nor “observer” and “what is observed.”
At that moment, Subhuti could not immediately comprehend and abide in the Tathagata’s realm of true emptiness. Yet he understands the principle that “from true emptiness arises wondrous existence” — for the Tathagata’s realm of true emptiness manifests all forms yet is ultimately free from all forms.
From this perspective, we can perceive the Tathāgata through any form: seeing any form is seeing emptiness, and thus seeing the Tathagata. Precisely because Subhūti understands this truth, he says that the Tathāgata may be perceived through the thirty-two marks. Therefore, he affirms that the Tathāgata may indeed be perceived through the thirty-two marks.
For disciples clinging to ‘the non-duality of form and emptiness’, Subhūti’s answer doesn’t sound wrong. But for those attached to a fixed conception of the Tathāgata’s appearance, this response becomes partial and misleading. Therefore, if this passage were placed earlier in the discourse, it might have been followed by the statement: “The Thirty-Two Marks are themselves no-marks; they are merely called the Thirty-Two Marks.” But here Subhūti makes no such clarification, for his dialogue with the Buddha has now turns to the non-duality of form and emptiness, the essence and appearance are inseparable. Disciples can no longer grasp truth through conceptual distinctions – between ‘true or false’ or ‘essence versus form.’ Instead, they must penetrate beyond all fixation on both nature and phenomena in one immediate realization.
Because in the preceding Segments, the Buddha repeatedly revealed that in the Tathāgata’s realm of true emptiness, there is no thought, no mind, and no forms whatsoever. Yet from this very ground of emptiness, the Tathāgata expounds the Dharma, liberates sentient beings, and even speaks of a “self.” Every sentient being embodies this same Tathāgata-quality.
From the very beginning of his inquiry into emptiness up to this point, although Subhūti had progressively dismantled different layers of attachment to appearances deep within, his focus remained unwaveringly fixed upon the Buddha before him. Even when speaking of the Tathāgata’s state, he regarded it solely as the Buddha’s own realization — not yet abiding himself in that same state with the Buddha.
Thus, in his response regarding emptiness, there still remained a clinging to the notion of “self”, “Buddha” and the dualistic act of questioning-and-answering — Subhūti and the Buddha were still perceived as two. Therefore, those who have not attained the fruition state, even if they have realized the Buddha’s view and experienced awakening, must still maintain constant awareness of the perspective behind their speech and actions. Otherwise, subtle clinging may arise, causing them to deviate from emptiness. Only by abiding firmly in the fruition state can it be considered true realization.
Thus, at this point, the Buddha gently askes again, “Subhūti, what do you think? Can the Tathāgata be perceived through the Thirty-Two Marks?” If Subhūti had already been fully settled in the Tathāgata’s realm of true emptiness at that moment, he would have immediately grasped the Buddha’s intent—there would be no ‘Subhūti’ who could perceive, and with what could he perceive? Nor is there a Tathāgata with Thirty-Two Marks to be perceived. The one who perceives and that which is perceived—both are empty. Without Subhūti, there would be no Tathāgata appearing before him. For where there is no self, no person, there can be no Thirty-Two Marks of the Tathāgata.
Although Subhūti has a deep and complete understanding of emptiness, he has not, in that moment, fully settles into the Tathāgata’s state of true emptiness. His reply still carries subtle traces of self and Buddha — there is still a “self” who is observing. Yet what the Buddha is reminding him of is this: at such a moment, Subhūti is to be one with the Tathāgata. Therefore, the Buddha immediately negates his reply and says, “Subhūti, if one perceives the Tathāgata by means of the Thirty-Two Marks, then the Wheel-Turning Holy King is the Tathāgata.”
The Buddha uses an example to negate Subhūti’s previous reply. In the Buddhist scriptures, it is said that the Wheel-Turning Holy King possesses great merit and virtue. When he appears in the world, he is able to unify the entire realm. His body is naturally endowed with the thirty-two major marks of a Tathāgata, though he lacks the eighty minor marks.
The Buddha says, “If that were the case, then the Wheel-Turning Holy King would also be the
Tathāgata.” At once, Subhūti understands the Buddha’s perspective and says,“World-Honored One, I now understand the meaning of what you are saying — one should not perceive the Tathāgata through the Thirty-Two Marks.” This is the functional manifestation of true emptiness: when one contemplates the Thirty-Two Marks of the Tathāgata, yet in the mind there truly exists no Thirty-Two Marks, then the Tathāgata is, indeed, formless.
At the end of this Segment, the World-Honored One spoke a verse：
If one sees me through form,
or seeks me through sound,
such a person walks a wrong path
and cannot see the Tathāgata.
Buddha’s this verse is proclaimed from the realization of the Tathāgata’s ultimate emptiness. If practitioners truly wish to understand the nature of the Tathāgata, they must awaken to the Buddha’s wisdom of emptiness. Otherwise, even if one perceives a vision of myriad buddhas and deities in meditation, it does not count as a true vision of the Tathāgata. To truly see the Tathāgata, one must realizes the Self-Nature, the true emptiness of Tathāgata, all being in essence are Buddha.
When I read this verse, I recalled a fellow practitioner’s question: ‘The Buddha teaches us not to seek Him through sound or form, yet Avalokiteśvara Bodhisattva (Guanyin) says he hears the cries of suffering and appears wherever called, and Amitabha Buddha vows to come and guide those who call His name at death. Doesn’t this lead us to walk a wrong path?’
The verse spoken by the Buddha in the Diamond Sutra is established within the realm of the Tathāgata’s true emptiness, addressing all disciples who aspire to attain the unsurpassed, complete equal and complete awareness. If a practitioner of Mahāyāna Buddhism still clings to the notions of self, person, sentient beings, Buddha, Buddhadharma, and so forth, they cannot return to and attain Buddhahood.
From the perspective of Amitabha Buddha and Avalokiteśvara Bodhisattva, their manifestations are compassionate expressions of emptiness within time and space, guiding those who are drowning in the sea of suffering and unable to free themselves from the desperate predicament of afflictions.
One speaks of true emptiness, the other of wondrous functioning — these are two different perspectives. The Buddha speaks of the realm of the Tathāgata’s true emptiness, the fruition state.This is the view that sentient beings must have to awaken from their dream. Amitabha Buddha and Avalokiteśvara Bodhisattva manifest their activities into the dreams of sentient beings, guiding and receiving those who perceive themselves as suffering and unable to attain liberation.
In the study and practice of the Dharma, it is imperative to cultivate a correct Buddhist understanding of emptiness, while simultaneously exercising skillful compassion. Guided by this correct view of emptiness, practitioners engage in the Bodhisattva path in the world, employing diverse and skillful methods to lead sentient beings toward salvation and ultimate liberation.
Some practitioners cite this verse of the Buddha to attack and slander those who talk about their own realized states or supernatural powers, claiming that these people are following a wrong path or have become demon-possessed.
Actually, regardless of what this person is saying, the first thing to observe is whether they are clinging to such supernatural attainments, whether they are showing off, or seeking fame and profit through them. If not — if the practitioner is merely asking questions out of confusion or sharing insights from a certain realized state — and if their view aligns with the Buddha’s right perception of emptiness, then they cannot be accused of walking on wrong path, to slander them is create verbal karma.
In the eighteenth Segment, the Buddha also states that Buddha possesses the divine eye, the wisdom eye, the Dharma eye, and the Buddha eye – each corresponding to its own realm of realization. Even when the Buddha speaks of these realms, it is from the full realization of the illusory nature of all phenomena— whether he is referring to supernatural powers, boundless Dharma capabilities, or the immeasurable and infinite conditions of the buddha-lands. We must not use this as grounds to slander the Buddha, yet sentient beings are exceedingly prone to clinging to these appearances—Sometimes no longer clinging to what is seen by the fleshly eye, only to grasp at what is perceived by the divine eye. Therefore, many masters in later generations instructed their disciples to “slay Buddha when you meet the Buddha; slay the demon when you meet the demon.” This is because the disciples had not yet entered the Tathāgata’s realm of true emptiness, and the masters feared they would cling to these mere sceneries along the path. If a disciple has truly realized that all appearances are illusory—whether the form of a Buddha or a demon, whatever manifests is ultimately unreal—then one need only abide in suchness, unmoved: what need is there to slay anything? Even speaking of emptiness or existence, of Buddhas or demons, is merely a skillful means to liberate sentient beings.