Saṃdhinirmocana — Unraveling the Intent

Summary

In Unraveling the Intent, the Buddha gives a systematic overview of his three great cycles of
teachings, which he refers to in this text as the “three Dharma wheels” (tridharmacakra). In the process of delineating the meaning of these doctrines, the Buddha unravels several
difficult points regarding the ultimate and relative truths, the nature of reality, and the contemplative methods conducive to the
attainment of complete and perfect awakening, and he also explains what his intent was when he imparted teachings belonging to
each of the three Dharma wheels. In unambiguous terms, the third wheel is proclaimed to be of definitive meaning. Through a series
of dialogues with hearers and bodhisattvas, the Buddha thus offers a complete and systematic teaching on the Great Vehicle, which
he refers to here as the Single Vehicle.

Acknowledgements

Translation by the Buddhavacana Translation Group.

The text was translated by Gregory Forgues and edited by Casey Kemp. With special thanks to Harunaga Isaacson, Matthew
Kapstein, Klaus-Dieter Mathes, Jonathan Silk, Lambert Schmithausen, Tom Tillemans, and William Waldron for their helpful comments
and advice.

The translation was completed under the patronage and supervision of 84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha.

The generous sponsorship of Qiang Li (李强) and Ya Wen (文雅), which helped make the work on this translation possible, is most gratefully acknowledged.

Introduction

Setting and Summary

In Unraveling the Intent, the Buddha gives a systematic overview of his three great
cycles of teachings, which he refers to in this text as the “three Dharma wheels” (tridharmacakra). In the process of delineating the meaning of these doctrines, the Buddha unravels several
difficult points regarding the ultimate and relative truths, the nature of reality, and the contemplative methods conducive to
the attainment of complete and perfect awakening, and he also explains what his intent was when he imparted teachings
belonging to each of the three Dharma wheels. Through a series of dialogues with hearers and bodhisattvas, the Buddha thus
offers a complete and systematic teaching on the Great Vehicle, which he refers to here as the Single Vehicle .

The sūtra is set in an unfathomable palace displayed by the Buddha’s powers and attended by countless
beings. The three gates of liberation (emptiness, appearancelessness, and wishlessness) are the entrance to
this abode of the tathāgatas, the inconceivable nondual state of a buddha who, possessed of the gnosis (jñāna) of the Tathāgata’s liberation, is dwelling in the domain of truth (dharmadhātu), together with an immeasurable retinue of hearers and a retinue of
bodhisattvas including Gambhīrārthasaṃdhinirmocana, Vidhivatparipṛcchaka, Dharmodgata, Suviśuddhamati, Viśālamati,
Guṇākara, Paramārthasamudgata, Avalokiteśvara, Maitreya, and Mañjuśrī.

The Context

The sūtra is structured in the form of a series of dialogues between the Buddha and advanced bodhisattvas or hearers,
as well as between bodhisattvas (see

chapter 1). These dialogues deal with both the
theory and practice of the entire bodhisattva path. Narrative elements are extremely limited in this teaching. However, a
narrative pattern can be found in chapter 2 and 3, which begin, respectively, with a story about a group of non-Buddhists
(tīrthikas) and some followers of the Buddha who have gathered to discuss
a difficult point regarding the nature of reality and cannot agree on anything. The main protagonists then beg the Buddha to
provide an explanation for the quandary these assemblies cannot not resolve, or alternatively to explain his underlying intent
when he expounded the teachings that gave rise to conflicting interpretations.

Each chapter starts with a question on a topic requiring further elucidation: In the first chapter, the bodhisattva
Vidhivatparipṛcchaka questions the bodhisattva Gambhīrārthasaṃdhinirmocana on the inexpressible (anabhilāpya) and nondual (advaya)
ultimate. In the second chapter, the bodhisattva Dharmodgata questions the Buddha on the ultimate beyond speculation (sarvatarkasamatikrānta). In the third chapter, the bodhisattva Suviśuddhamati
questions the Buddha on the ultimate that is beyond being distinct or indistinct (bhedābhedasamatikrānta) from conditioned phenomena. In the fourth chapter, Subhūti questions the Buddha on
the ultimate that is of a single nature (ekarasa) within all phenomena. In
the fifth chapter, the bodhisattva Viśālamati questions the Buddha on the secrets of mind (citta), thought (manas), and cognition
(vijñāna). In the sixth chapter, the bodhisattva Guṇākara questions the
Buddha on the three defining characteristics (lakṣaṇa) of phenomena. In the
seventh chapter, the bodhisattva Paramārthasamudgata questions the Buddha on the three kinds of essencelessness (niḥsvabhāvatā) as well as on the Buddha’s three turnings of the Dharma wheel. In
the eighth chapter, the bodhisattva Maitreya questions the Buddha on the practice of mental stillness (śamatha) and insight (vipaśyanā).
In the ninth chapter, the bodhisattva Avalokiteśvara questions the Buddha on the stages of the bodhisattva path and the
Single Vehicle (ekayāna). In the tenth chapter, the bodhisattva Mañjuśrī
questions the Buddha on the bodies (kāya) and activity of the tathāgatas.

From a broader perspective, it is possible to consider that the teaching imparted in this sūtra is structured in terms
of the basis (āśraya), the path (mārga), and the result (phala). The first four chapters on the
five characteristics of the ultimate
as defined in the Prajñāpāramitā sūtras represent a teaching on the abovementioned basis, namely, true reality (tathatā) as it is; chapters 5–9, a teaching on the path in terms of practices and
stages to attain awakening; and chapter 10, a teaching on the result through the doctrine of the tathāgatas’ bodies and
activity to awaken beings. All major Tibetan traditions consider chapter 3, focusing on the relation between the
two truths, and chapter 8, focusing on meditative practice, to be authoritative. These are among the scriptures most quoted on
their respective topics by Tibetan authors regardless of lineage.

Main Points of the Subject Matter

The Basis

The first four chapters point out the nature of reality by distinguishing the unconditioned from the conditioned,
the pure from the afflicted, the ultimate from the conventional, nondual gnosis from mind’s elaborations, inexpressible
reality from conventional expressions, and the actual from the imaginary. The first chapter thus starts with the
distinction between conditioned and unconditioned phenomena, which became a prevalent theme in the various Abhidharmas.
Through this distinction, the point is made that the ultimate is inexpressible and nondual. The realization of this
inexpressible ultimate is achieved through gnosis alone. Conceptions in terms of conditioned and unconditioned merely
exist in the way of a magical illusion. Yet, in order to lead beings to awakening, buddhas have to use such
labels. The second chapter elaborates on this very point. Although the ultimate is beyond speculation, the Buddha taught
liberation by means of verbal expressions and conventions belonging to the domain of phenomenal appearances and notions.

As a consequence, the first two chapters delineate two domains corresponding to the two truths (satyadvaya): ⁽¹⁾ the pure domain of the ultimate, which, being inexpressible,
nondual, and beyond speculation, is the realm of nonconceptual gnosis free from conventional appearance and notions, and
⁽²⁾ the afflicted domain of dualistic conventional expressions and notions, which is the realm of mental elaborations.
These domains are respectively labeled by the buddhas as “the unconditioned” and “the conditioned” only for the sake of
instructing beings, for the Buddha explains that this distinction between unconditioned and conditioned is
only made on the level of the conditioned, namely, from the perspective of dualistic conventions. Within the realm of
these conventional expressions, in the context of the path, it follows that these two domains are apparently mutually
exclusive, although the Buddha hints at the fact that, from the perspective of the ultimate, the conditioned is not the
conditioned and the unconditioned is not the unconditioned.

Chapter 3 explains how the relation between the ultimate and conditioned phenomena seen from this higher
perspective should be communicated on the level of conventions. From this standpoint, one cannot say whether the ultimate
is distinct or indistinct from conditioned phenomena. The Buddha shows that positing these two domains as distinct or
indistinct is wrong. Since conditioned phenomena are characterized by the fact of being produced by causes and conditions,
it is inappropriate to conceive (a) the conditioned and (b) the emptiness of an inherent nature as either identical or
different. On the one hand, being conditioned (i.e., dependent on something other) is identical with being empty of an
intrinsic nature; on the other hand, the domain of the conditioned is defined as the realm of afflictions, while the
domain of the unconditioned is understood as the pure realm. Some might therefore think that phenomena and the nature of
phenomena are distinct, but the Buddha teaches in the fourth chapter that the empty nature of conditioned phenomena, the
ultimate, cannot be said to be distinct from those phenomena. As such, this subtle and profound ultimate is indeed of a
single character within phenomena whose defining characteristic appears to be diverse. To realize this nature of
phenomena, which is unconditioned selflessness, one should only rely on nondual gnosis, not mind.

The Path

Chapter 5 is a presentation of the “secrets of mind, thought, and cognition.” Here the Buddha
introduces the concept of “appropriating cognition” (ādānavijñāna), also
called “subliminal cognition” (ālayavijñāna), “mind” (citta), or “mind containing all the
seeds” (sarvabījaṃ cittam). This mind, in which mental events manifest, acts is like a
mirror in which reflections appear. It is the basis of previous mental imprints resulting from volitions and actions that
create predispositions (i.e., latent dispositions) to experience reality in conventional terms. However, once bodhisattvas
cognize in an intuitive and personal way the ultimate by means of gnosis, they no longer perceive this mind. In the closing
verses of this chapter, the Buddha explains that this mind is without a self, since it is conditioned and composed by
seeds. Through these definitions, the Buddha de facto delineates two realms: the domain of dualistic mind and the domain
of nondual gnosis.

Chapter 6 is a teaching on the three defining characteristics (lakṣaṇa) of phenomena: the imaginary defining characteristic (parikalpitalakṣaṇa), the other-dependent defining characteristic (paratantralakṣaṇa), and the actual defining characteristic (pariniṣpannalakṣaṇa): ⁽¹⁾ The imaginary defining characteristic is the superimposition onto phenomena of
an essence or a defining characteristic existing from its own side, by means of designations or conventional expressions.
This imaginary characteristic is utterly false in the way of a visual aberration, since phenomena are ultimately devoid of
any defining characteristic that makes them what they are. ⁽²⁾ The other-dependent defining characteristic corresponds to
the dependent arising of phenomena. It refers to phenomenal appearances upon which an imaginary defining characteristic is
superimposed. This point is grasped once the imaginary defining characteristic of phenomena is understood to be a wrong
conception. It is worth noting that the other-dependent defining characteristic delineates the domain of conditioned
cognitions, namely, the mind as presented in chapter 5 (this point is made clear in

with regard to karma and rebirth), and as such, represents the domain of affliction (see

).
⁽³⁾ The actual defining characteristic is the permanent and immutable reality of phenomena. It is the ultimate unerring
object that is manifest once the selflessness of phenomena, the nonexistence of any fictive defining characteristic in
phenomena arising dependently, has been realized. Only the actual defining characteristic constitutes the domain of
purification, since the other-dependent defines the domain of affliction, namely, the realm of the conditioned. In the
closing verses of this chapter, the Buddha gives a quintessential presentation of the path: one should first recognize
that phenomena are devoid of imaginary defining characteristics by seeing them as mere designations superimposed on
conditioned cognitions. At that time, one will abandon phenomena characterized by affliction, namely, conditioned
phenomena in the form of conditioned cognitions, and turn toward phenomena characterized by purification that are in
harmony with ultimate reality.

Chapter 7 begins with Paramārthasamudgata’s question: why did the Buddha first teach the defining
characteristic of phenomena, their arising, their cessation, and so forth through the notions of the five aggregates, the
twelve sense domains, and so on, when he later explained that all phenomena are without an essence? The Buddha answers by
teaching the three kinds of essencelessness, namely, essencelessness regarding defining characteristics, essencelessness
regarding arising, and essencelessness regarding the ultimate: ⁽¹⁾ Essencelessness regarding defining characteristics
refers to the imaginary defining characteristic of phenomena. It is the essencelessness of what is utterly nonexistent
(i.e., the defining characteristic), which is like a sky flower. ⁽²⁾ Essencelessness regarding arising refers to the
other-dependent defining characteristic of phenomena arising from causes other than themselves. It is presented as the
magic illusion of dependent arising, in the context of this teaching the magic illusion of mind. ⁽³⁾ Essencelessness
regarding the ultimate has two aspects. The first is the essencelessness of all conditioned phenomena with regard to the
ultimate. As a corollary of dependent arising, those phenomena are in fact not born as anything, being dependent on causes
and conditions for their arising and therefore impermanent. The second aspect of essencelessness with regard to the
ultimate refers to the only unconditioned object of purification, the actual defining characteristic of phenomena, the
ultimate selflessness of phenomena, which is like space, itself also unconditioned. This permanent and immutable nature of
phenomena is the primordial state of peace of that which, being without a defining characteristic, is unborn and
unceasing, by nature in the state of nirvāṇa.

In

, the Buddha describes the entire process leading to
confusion: beings reify the other-dependent and the actual defining characteristics in terms of the imaginary
defining characteristic. Failing to understand that conventional expressions do not refer to actual things, they
superimpose an essence on conditioned cognitions and imagine reality to be just as it is described by their linguistic
conventions. Figments of imagination become causes and conditions for their mental activities, which will lead them to the
afflictions of action and rebirth. The process described here is akin to a world of virtual reality where even the
projector, the conditioned mind, is imaginary. As one takes the projected phenomena as real and reifies them, one acts,
suffers, dies, and is endlessly “respawned” within this virtual reality. Although this pseudo-reality projected by mind is
nonexistent, it will condition one’s mind and one’s future existence as one will act in accordance with one’s state of
mind within this virtual reality. In

).

Next, the Buddha explains how various beings relate to this process and how he has helped them with
teachings corresponding to their circumstances and capacities. For example, some can understand on a dualistic level that
defining characteristics (i.e., the virtual reality of phenomena) lack an essence, and thus slowly develop repulsion
toward conditioned phenomena, even if they are not able to realize the ultimate nature of phenomena, their nondual
primordial selflessness which is the domain of gnosis. In accordance with this model of reality, the Buddha declares that
there is only the path and journey toward liberation and thus a Single Vehicle for both hearers and bodhisattvas because
there is only a single purification.

In

, Paramārthasamudgata defines the three turnings of the
wheel of Dharma. Because this doctrine is included in this specific chapter, it seems logical to interpret the three
turnings of the wheel of Dharma in relation to the three kinds of essencelessness: ⁽¹⁾ The first turning used the notion
that phenomena have a defining characteristic to teach the essencelessness of these defining characteristics in a series
of teachings such as the five aggregates, the twelve sense domains, and so on (see also

4.1–6). In our metaphor on virtual reality, one could see these teachings as being
expounded on the basis of the very imaginary phenomena conceptualized as truly existing. When children experience a
nightmare, their parents show that the monster does not exist by implicitly, i.e. provisionally, accepting its existence,
saying, “Look! It is not there.” ⁽²⁾ The second turning of the wheel teaches the first aspect of essencelessness with
regard to the ultimate, stating that phenomena are unborn. From this perspective, the primordial selflessness of phenomena
is still taught in relation to dualistic phenomena. As a consequence, Paramārthasamudgata considers this cycle of
teachings as provisional. ⁽³⁾ The third turning of the wheel aims at teaching the second aspect of essencelessness with
regard to the ultimate in a way that is not limited to the domain of dualistic phenomena. To pursue our metaphor, this
third cycle of teachings gives a complete overview of the three defining characteristics of phenomena: the completely
imaginary experience of a virtual reality, the magic illusion of the projecting mind, and the primordial domain of gnosis.
Paramārthasamudgata declares the third turning to be of definitive meaning.

It is worth noting that the doctrine of the three defining characteristics can be seen as delineating three great
categories of soteriological approaches found in Indo-Tibetan Buddhist traditions: ⁽¹⁾ the deconstruction of putative
notions of an individual self through mereological and relational strategies; ⁽²⁾ the deconstruction of notions of a self
regarding conditioned phenomena through the impossibility of their ultimate arising, since these conditioned phenomena
merely exist in dependence; and ⁽³⁾ the pointing out of the nondual ultimate nature of phenomena, which altogether
bypasses imaginary mental constructions.

In the eighth chapter, the famous Maitreya chapter on meditation, the Buddha first gives a series of definitions
followed by the description of a process, a pattern frequently used in this sūtra. First, the objects of the practices of
mental stillness (śamatha) and insight (vipaśyanā) are defined as, respectively, an image without and with conceptualization, while
their objects, when both practices are combined, are the point where things end (vastvanta) and the accomplishment of the goal (kṛtyānuṣṭhāna, i.e., the attainment of the path). Mental stillness consists in directing one’s attention
(manasikāra) inward toward the mind that is directing attention (see

). It follows a state of inner absorption produced by concentrating
on a referential object. The practice of insight consists in analyzing, discerning, and differentiating the various
cognitive aspects of the image (pratibimba) that is the object of
concentration. These two practices are neither different nor identical. They are not different in that they take mind as a
referential object, but they are not identical because insight takes a conceptual image as its referential object. The
Buddha thus explains in an often-cited passage that this image taken as an object of concentration is not different from
mind insofar as cognition is constituted by the mere representation (vijñaptimātra) that is the object of this cognition. The mind and the image, which is its object
manifesting as a mental event, appear as different, although they are not. All mental images, whether in the context of
practice or not, are mere representations. Once one has realized this, directing one’s attention toward true reality is
the one-pointedness of mind in which mental stillness and insight are unified. A superior way to practice this path is
therefore to focus on that which is universal in all the various specific teachings imparted by the Buddha. This approach,
which is based on a practice devoid of mental engagement (vitarka) and
investigation (vicāra), directly focuses on the element that converges
toward true reality. The ensuing shift in one’s basis of existence (āśrayaparivṛtti) mentioned in this sūtra does not here refer to a transformation of the subliminal
cognition (ālayavijñāna). According to

, this shift, once all corruption has been eliminated, consists in nothing other than the bodhisattva’s
attainment of the truth body (dharmakāya).

The Buddha then explains how one attends to phenomenal appearances in an increasingly nonconceptual way. He also
gives an elucidation of the analytical knowledge of designations (dharmapratisaṃvid) and their objects (arthapratisaṃvid) attained through the practice of mental stillness and insight. In this context, a few key
definitions are given; for example, the true reality of representations is that all conditioned phenomena are mere
representations (see

8.20.2.iii). When presented in four
aspects, the analytical knowledge of designations and their objects encapsulate the entire path through the four stages of mental appropriation, experience, affliction, and purification. When asked about the
nature of gnosis, the Buddha answers that it “consists in the mental stillness and insight that take a universal teaching
as a referential object” while “perception consists in the mental stillness and insight that take a specific teaching as a
referential object” (see

). Practically, bodhisattvas direct their
attention to true reality, discarding the phenomenal appearances of designations and objects of designation. Without
taking any essential characteristic as a referential object, they do not pay attention to phenomenal appearances. Their
attention is focused on that which is of a single character within all phenomena. The Buddha then gives a list of all the
phenomenal appearances eliminated by emptiness, from the emptiness of all phenomena up to the emptiness of emptiness. By
letting go of their object of concentration, the phenomenal appearance corresponding to a mental image, bodhisattvas free
themselves from the bonds of conditioned phenomenal appearances (nimitta). Connecting these instructions on meditative practice with his teaching on the three defining
characteristics, the Buddha explains that he taught the defining characteristic of emptiness in the Great Vehicle as the
nonexistence and nonperception of an imaginary defining characteristic with regard to both affliction and purification in
the other-dependent and actual defining characteristics of phenomena.

Practical instructions are also given to overcome obstacles and distractions to the practice of mental stillness
and insight. On the ultimate stage of the path, these practices eliminate extremely subtle obstructions resulting in the
complete purification of the truth body. The gnosis and vision utterly free from attachment and hindrance are attained.
Finally, the Buddha explains how bodhisattvas obtain their great powers by being skillful in the following six points: ⁽¹⁾
the arising of the mind, ⁽²⁾ the underlying condition of the mind, ⁽³⁾ the emergence from the mind, ⁽⁴⁾ the increase of
the mind, ⁽⁵⁾ the decrease of the mind, and ⁽⁶⁾ skillful means. In this section of the Maitreya chapter, an overview of
the vijñaptimātra doctrine is given through the notion of cognition,
which includes the appropriating cognition as well as the arising cognitions taking various phenomenal appearances as
their object. In this context, it is explained that the supramundane mind of the buddhas does not have any phenomenal
appearance as its object.

In chapter 9, the Buddha is questioned on the stages (bhūmi) of a
bodhisattva and a buddha, the names of these stages, and their adverse factors and specific arising, as well as on the ten
perfections (pāramitā). A final instruction is imparted regarding the
Single Vehicle. As mentioned in previous chapters, the Buddha explains that he taught the essence of phenomena in the
vehicle of hearers in terms of the aggregates, the sense domains, and so on, and that he presented these phenomena in the
light of a single principle in the Great Vehicle, the domain of truth (dharmadhātu). Those who conceptualize these teachings by taking them literally do not understand his
underlying intention, which is that both vehicles are in fact teachings based on a single principle.

The Result

In the tenth chapter, Mañjuśrī questions the Buddha on the defining characteristic of the truth body of the
tathāgatas. The Buddha explains the truth body in the sense of a result attained through the practice of the stages and
perfections. This attainment consists in a shift in one’s basis of existence. From the perspective of beings
belonging to the domain of mental elaborations and conditioned phenomena, the truth body is therefore inconceivable, being
utterly beyond mental elaborations,. Here again the Buddha delineates two distinct realms.

The tathāgatas, who appear as emanation bodies (nirmāṇakāya), are
said to be like a manifestation, an apparition. Through their skillful means and sovereign power (adhiṣṭhāna), they liberate beings by imparting three kinds of
teaching: the sūtras, the Vinaya, and the mātṛkās (generally taken as more or less equivalent to the Abhidharma and
related literature): ⁽¹⁾ The sūtras teach what was heard, how to take refuge, the training, and the awakening. ⁽²⁾ The
Vinaya teaches the precepts and prātimokṣa vows to hearers and bodhisattvas. ⁽³⁾ The mātṛkās are systematic teachings on
important doctrinal points, such as the defining characteristic of the conventional and the ultimate, the defining
characteristic of referential objects consisting of the awakening factors and their features, and so forth. In the section
of the mātṛkā pertaining to the ascertainment of the qualities of cognitive objects, the Buddha goes into a lengthy
discussion on logical analysis according to the four principles of reason (yukti): ⁽¹⁾ the principle of reason based on dependence (apekṣāyukti), ⁽²⁾ the principle of reason based on cause and effect (kāryakāraṇayukti), ⁽³⁾ the principle of reason based on logical proof (upapattisādhanayukti), and ⁽⁴⁾ the principle of reason based on the nature of phenomena itself
(dharmatāyukti). The explanation given by the Buddha on the third
yukti of this list (cf.

10.7.4.vii.c) is very extensive and resembles a short treatise on epistemology in which the
notion of means of knowledge or valid cognition (pramāṇa) is meticulously
investigated. In this section, the Buddha explains the characteristics of valid and invalid reasonings. He concludes by
stating that three types of valid cognition should be accepted: direct cognition (pratyakṣa), inference (anumāna), and authoritative
scriptures (āptāgama).

The Buddha next elucidates “the meaning of the dhāraṇī through
which bodhisattvas comply with the underlying intention of the profound Dharma expounded by the tathāgatas, the complete
meaning of the sūtras, the Vinaya, and the mātṛkās.” This quintessential teaching encapsulating the meaning of the entire
Dharma states that beings are in truth beyond activity and beyond being afflicted or purified. It is only
because of their reification of illusory phenomena in terms of identity and essence that they conceive their reality in
the way they do, which leads them to suffering. Abandoning this “body afflicted by corruption” (dauṣṭhulyakāya), they obtain the truth body that is
inconceivable and unconditioned (i.e., the dharmakāya). In this context,
the Buddha concludes by explaining that the tathāgatas are not characterized by mind, thought, and cognition.
Their mind arises without effort in the way of an emanation (nirmāṇa). In
their case, one cannot say whether their mind exists or not, their domain consisting of pure realms. It follows that the
tathāgatas are characterized by nonduality: “They are neither completely and perfectly awakened nor not completely and
perfectly awakened; they neither turn the wheel of Dharma nor do not turn the wheel of Dharma; they neither attain the
great parinirvāṇa nor do not attain the great parinirvāṇa. This is because the truth body is utterly pure and the
emanation body constantly manifests.” Once the truth body has been purified through the practice focusing on the domain of
truth (dharmadhātu), “the great light of gnosis manifests in
beings, and innumerable emanated reflections arise.” One should keep in mind, though, the teachings
imparted in Chapter 3 on the conventional and ultimate truths. From the perspective of the ultimate, nothing has ever been
purified by anybody, as the concluding verses of the formula in Chapter 10 make clear:

“The possessors of qualities resulting from affliction and purification

Are all without movement and without a person;

Therefore, I declare them to be without activity,

As they are neither purified nor afflicted, be it in the past or the future.

“Relying on views resulting from their latent dispositions,

On account of which they wrongly conceive the body afflicted by corruption,

They reify [the ego through concepts such as] ‘I’ and ‘mine.’

As a consequence, notions arise, such as ‘I see,’ ‘I eat,’ ‘I do,’ ‘I am afflicted,’ and ‘I am purified.’

“Thus, those who understand this fact as it really is

Abandon the body afflicted by corruption and instead

Will obtain a body that is not a support for any defilement,

Being free from mental elaborations and unconditioned.”

Source Text and Various Versions

The only complete extant versions of the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra (Saṃdh.) are Chinese
and Tibetan translations produced from Sanskrit manuscripts. All the recensions of the sūtra in Tibetan include a prologue
followed by ten chapters. In addition to the various Kangyur editions, the sūtra is also quoted in full in the Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī of the Yogācārabhūmi. The list of the
available recensions of the text across Sanskrit, Chinese, and Tibetan include:

1. Sanskrit (including Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit)

– Buescher 2007: 102–104 (quotations in TrBh, 33.25–34.4 drawn from Saṃdh.

and

; see also Lévi
1925: 33–34)

– Matsuda 1995 (complete reconstruction from manuscript of Saṃdh.

9.1–6)

– Matsuda 2013 (fragments of Saṃdh.

and

, fragments of

8.39–40, complete reconstruction from manuscript of

)

– Nagao 1964: 43 (gives the list of the seven kinds of tattva mentioned in Saṃdh.

8.20.2 and quoted
in the Madhyāntavibhāgabhāṣya)

– Nagao 1982–1987: I.4, I.7.

– Tucci 1971: 1 (two verses from Saṃdh.

that are quoted in Kamalaśīla’s Bhāvanākrama: nimittabandhanāj jantur atho dauṣṭhulabandhanāt / vipaśyanāṃ bhāvayitvā śamathañ ca vimucyata iti)
and ibid., p. 22 (a sentence drawn from

also quoted in the Bhāvanākrama: ekāntasattvārthavimukhasya
ekāntasaṃsārābhisaṃskāravimukhasya [nā] uttarā samyaksaṃbodhir uktā mayeti)

2. Chinese

– 相續解脫地波羅蜜了義經 (Taishō 678) and 相續解脫如來所作隨順處了義經

(Taishō 679) translated by Guṇabhadra (394–468 ce) between 435 and 443 ce (these two texts include respectively chapters 9 and 10)

– 深密解脫經 (Taishō 675) translated by Bodhiruci (fl. 508–535 ce) in 514 (includes a prologue followed by ten chapters as in the Tibetan versions of the text)

– 佛說解節經 (Taishō 677) translated by Paramārtha (498–569 ce) in 557 (mentioned in Wonch’uk’s commentaries on the sūtra; the prologue is different from those

translated by Bodhiruci and Xuanzang; only the first four chapters are translated)

– 解深密經

(Taishō 676) translated by Xuanzang (596–664 ce) in 647 (a complete
translation of the prologue and the ten chapters)

3. Tibetan

a. Tshalpa group

– Kb116 mdo sde, ca 1b1–71a1 (vol. 57)

– C747 mdo sde, ca 1b1–71a7 (vol. 29)

– D106 mdo sde, ca 1b1–55b7 (vol. 49)

– J51 mdo sde, ca 1b1–59b8 (vol. 44)

– Kq774 mdo sna tshogs, ngu 1b1–60b7 (vol. 29, p.

1)

– R106 mdo sde, ca 1b1–55b7 (vol. 49)

– U106 mdo sde, ca 1b1–55b7 (vol. 49)

– VD D4038 mdo ’grel (sems tsam), zi 44a–97b

– VG GT3542 mdo ’grel (sems tsam), ’i 59b–136a

– VP Kq5539 mdo ’grel (sems tsam), ’i 47b–109a

b. Thempangma group

– L82 mdo sde, na 1b1–80b1 (vol. 42)

– S106 mdo sde, na 1b1–80b1 (vol. 63)

– T107 mdo sde, na 1b1–70b1 (vol. 68)

– V156 mdo sde, na 1b1–69b6 (vol. 65)

– Z137 mdo, na 1b1–93a6 (vol. 59)

c. Mustang group

– X mdo sde, wa 66a–132a

– He64.6 mdo, wa 62b5–125b8

d. Bhutan group

– Cz082-001 mdo, na 1b1–82a5

– Dd031-001 mdo, ca 1b1–69b2

– Dk034-001 mdo, na 1b1–87b1

– Gt028-001 mdo, na 1b1–72b3

– Np012-001 mdo, na 1b1–87a7

– Pj043-001 mdo, ca 1b1–62b4

– Pz045-001 mdo ca 1b1–61a5

e. Mixed/Independent editions

– F156 mdo sde, ba (tsha) 1b1–72a7 (vol. 68)

– H109 mdo sde, ca 1b1–87b7 (vol. 51)

– Lg11.8 mdo, da-L74 224b5–276a2

– N94 mdo sde, ca 1–81a7 (vol. 51)

– Ng13.07 mdo pa dgongs 111b3–162a8

– O23 mdo sde, cha

f. Other canonical collections

– Ablaikit collection IOM, RAS Tib.979/117

– Go19,01 ka 1b–36a6 (vol. 19)

– Bd3.7 vol. 3 (ta) pha 1b1–84a6

– Do mdo sde, da 196a–246b

g. Dunhuang manuscripts

– SaṃdhDH: Stein Tib. n°194 (49 folios); Stein Tib. n°683 (1

folio) (these folios cover ca. 40% of the sūtra; see Hakayama 1984–1987)

In addition, five commentaries have been composed on the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra:

– Asaṅga’s

– Wonch’uk’s *

– Jñāṇagarbha’s

– Changchup Dzutrül (byang chub rdzu ’phrul)’s *

– Trisong Detsen (khri srong lde brtsan)’s *

Translation Issues and Academic Research

I applied various methods and followed a series of steps during the process of translating the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra from the Tibetan:

1. Identifying and organizing source texts

I first collated all the available Tibetan editions of Saṃdhinirmocana: Bd, C,
D, Dunhuang (Hakayama 1984–87), Do, F, H, L, N, S, Kq, U, VD, X, and Z, as well as the various
extant Sanskrit fragments found in Buescher (2007), Levi (1925), Matsuda (1995, 2013), Nagao (1964), and Tucci (1971). For
the Chinese, we used Xuanzang’s translation. I then produced a critical edition of
the text prologue (nidāna) to get a sense of the textual variations
across major available editions of the Tshalpa (tshal pa), Thempangma
(them spangs ma), mixed Kangyurs, and independent Kangyur groups. In
addition, Dr. Kojirō Katō (Tokyo University), who is editing the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra,
kindly sent me his critical edition of the seventh chapter. His work has proved invaluable to confirming the findings of my own work on the
prologue. The editions belonging to the Thempangma differ significantly from those included in the Tshalpa line of
transmission. As an independent Kangyur close to the Thempangma line, the Phukdrak (phug brag) edition offers very interesting readings on the level of syntax and lexicography compared to the
editions of the Tshalpa group. It also diverges from the Thempangma witnesses in many locations. In the absence of
colophons mentioning the translators’ and editors’ names across the available editions, it remains difficult to understand
the history of these witnesses from the perspective of the underlying translation and editing process. As a consequence of
its palatable variant readings compared to the Tshalpa and Thempangma editions, I used the Phukdrak witness quite
extensively while translating the Degé edition, as well as the Stok edition and the Degé version of the Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī, to examine more thoroughly difficult
passages. The available Sanskrit fragments were on occasion also useful to determine the Sanskrit equivalent of a Tibetan
technical term. They, however, did not reveal major variations from the Tibetan texts. I referred to the Dunhuang
recension sporadically, as Schmithausen warned us not to follow it blindly. I also referred to Xuanzang’s translation regarding a few difficult passages
of the text. This translation is similar to those of the Tshalpa group and might have been carried out on the basis of a
Sanskrit manuscript similar to the one (or those) used for the translation upon which the Tibetan Tshalpa editions are
based.

2. Evaluating the available translations

The Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra is a major text of Indian Buddhism that has early on
attracted the attention of Buddhist Studies scholars. It has been translated into French, English, and German (partially).
Lamotte (1935) provided a critical edition of Saṃdhinirmocana and a translation from
Tibetan (N) and Chinese (Taishō 676) into French. He also attempted to reconstruct or identify technical terms in
Sanskrit, which have for the most part been confirmed by subsequent finds of Sanskrit fragments. Lamotte’s work is a major
resource for the study of Saṃdhinirmocana. It has been until now the standard edition
and translation of this text on account of its accuracy and methodological academic approach. As a side note, I followed
Lamotte’s segmentation of the text into paragraphs. His French translation is generally reliable, although some technical
passages can be significantly improved, particularly in the case of chapter 8 on meditation and chapter 10 on the result
of the path. Frauwallner (1969) gives a partial translation of Saṃdhinirmocana (i.e.,
chapters 6 and 7) from Tibetan into German. As one would expect, Frauwallner’s academic translation of these two chapters
aims at accuracy over readability. Kawasaki 1976 is also a partial translation of chapter 8 into English (§6.1–9). This
translation does not improve Lamotte’s. Powers’ (1995) translation from Tibetan (D) into English, in spite of its merit,
could be widely improved upon in terms of methodology, accuracy, and readability. Brunnhölzl 2018
offers a partial translation of chapter 7, as well as a few key passages from chapter 5.

Translations by Cleary (1999) and Keenan (2000) are from the Chinese (Taishō 676) into English. I used Keenan’s
work to get a sense of the Chinese text while translating the Degé edition but only referred to Cleary occasionally.
Keenan’s work seems to me more accurate than Cleary’s, although the latter was useful for unraveling difficult passages,
since his style is more free and primarily intends to communicate the meaning of the text. Cornu (2005) has provided a
translation of the text from Tibetan (D) into French that mainly follows Powers 1995, a somewhat regrettable fact since
Lamotte’s (1935) is more accurate. Schmithausen’s (2014) work contains numerous difficult passages of Saṃdhinirmocana translated from various Tibetan and Chinese editions into English. It is an
invaluable resource for the study of Saṃdhinirmocana. In addition, it offers useful
Sanskrit reconstructions of important technical terms. Together with Lamotte’s translation, it has been a constant companion while translating the text.

3. Checking intertextual patterns and delineating the scope of primary sources

The Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra is part of a larger network of texts, both in the
Kangyur and the Tengyur:

1. The nidāna of Saṃdhinirmocana almost exactly matches those of the Buddhabhūmisūtra (D275) and the Tathāgataguṇajñānācintyaviṣayāvatāranirdeśasūtra (D185). The Buddhabhūmisūtra is a very short text that was also translated into Chinese by Xuanzang in 646 (see Keenan
1980, p. 336ff.). Textual parallelisms of this kind are useful to double checking some passages or gathering more
background information about the source text.

2. As mentioned above, Saṃdhinirmocana is also found in
extenso in the Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī of the Yogācārabhūmi and is therefore part of a tradition of texts sharing common ideas. This point should be
kept in mind while translating, particularly when one has to evaluate the potential impact of terminological choices from
the perspective of a more philosophical approach to the text, which, in the case of Saṃdhinirmocana, should be a major concern. For example, one should pay attention to the fact that
interpreting “representation-only” (vijñaptimātra) as a strong form of
idealism essentializing mind could be misleading from the perspective of a cultural translation of the worldview
propounded in Saṃdhinirmocana since mind, just as much as the external object, is
explicitly declared to be empty of any own-being, essence, or intrinsic nature (see chapter 8 on the three kinds of
niḥsvabhāvatā) in this text.

3. Another important point is the presence of the aforementioned five commentaries on Saṃdhinirmocana found in the Tengyur (D). I occasionally
referred to these works while finalizing the final draft of the translation. However, I first focused on the
available editions of Saṃdhinirmocana itself as I did not want to be influenced by the
interpretations of later authors. Instead, I attempted to go through all possible logically meaningful readings according
to the Tibetan and Sanskrit sources without any preconceptions resulting from my reading of later commentarial traditions.

4. In the same vein, one should note that Saṃdhinirmocana has played a major
role in Tibetan hermeneutical debates. For centuries, it has been considered a central scripture referred to extensively
in the writings of Tibet’s great luminaries, such as Jé Tsongkhapa (rje tsong kha pa,
1357–1419) or Jamgön Mipham Gyatso (’jam mgon mi pham rgya mtsho, 1846–1912). While
it would certainly be fascinating to study the impact of Saṃdhinirmocana in the context
of Tibetan Madhyamaka, I chose not to take into account Indian or Tibetan commentaries or exegeses of the sūtra in order to
focus on the source text itself.

4. Collating academic research

I proceeded to search all articles and monographs referring to Saṃdhinirmocana
I could find at the very beginning of this translation project. In this quest for relevant academic research, I benefited
from the excellent bibliography found in Delhey 2013 regarding research done on the Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī of the Yogācārabhūmi, which I expanded with a list of
complementary reference works (see the bibliography). Among the existing academic literature on Saṃdhinirmocana, Schmithausen 2014 stands out and, unsurprisingly, proved to be a major resource for this
translation project.

5. Organizing academic resources according to the text structure and specific translation

issues

1. The translation of the title of the text became the object of several discussions
among scholars regarding the meaning of the Sanskrit words
saṃdhi and nirmocana as
a consequence of Lamotte’s first complete translation of the text. Among the various available options, I opted for simplicity and translated the
Sanskrit Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra with “The Sūtra Unraveling the Intent,”
which I believe renders accurately the meaning and structure of the text. Various interlocutors indeed ask the Buddha
repeatedly to explain difficult points in order to clarify the purpose of his seemingly contradictory or complex doctrines
on the nature of reality.

2. Regarding the content of the sūtra itself, I proceeded to organize secondary sources by chapter and referenced
this research in the notes accompanying my translation. The last chapter of Saṃdhinirmocana includes a very technical passage on valid cognition (pramāṇa) whose definitions predate Dignāga’s system of logic. Translating
Trisong Detsen’s *Samyagvākpramāṇoddhṛtasūtra, which is a commentary on the teaching on
the four principles of reason (rigs pa bzhi), would help us better
understand pre-Dignāgean Buddhist logic.

Translating the text

In this stage of the overall process, I followed Jean-François Billeter’s pragmatic approach to the
translation of classical Chinese texts. This approach consists in five operations:

1. The first stage of the translation process is purely analytical. A passage is translated on the basis of
lexicographical resources (e.g., dictionaries) and syntactic rules (e.g., grammars). During this operation, it is
important to distinguish what is understood and what still remains problematic. All options should be kept open.
Interpretations or eisegetical readings should be rejected. From a practical perspective, I systematically used the
Mahāvyutpatti to find the Sanskrit terms behind general Tibetan expressions. For
technical terms, I relied on Schmithausen (2014) and the academic research mentioned above.

Our Tibetan text is itself a translation. This somewhat complicates our task since we have to decipher the
Sanskrit behind the Tibetan in order to make sense of some difficult sentences or passages. However, this approach is
necessary on a lexicographical and syntactic level as can be seen in the following examples: One should read the
Tibetan brtsams pa as ārabhya, a Buddhist hybrid Sanskrit expression that has the meaning of “referring to/having to do with”
and not “beginning with.” Likewise,
rab tu phye ba stands for prabhāvita, which in the Saṃdhinirmocana means “consisting
in/characterized as/characterized by” and not “distinguished.” The problem is even more acute in the case of Sanskrit compounds that
have been translated into Tibetan according to the way they were formulated in Sanskrit. As an illustration of this,
compounds ending with lakṣaṇa (Tib. mtshan nyid) often make more sense in Saṃdhinirmocana as
bahuvrīhis than karmadhārayas or tatpuruṣas, not to mention dvandvas. Lamotte thus reads rtog
ge kun las ’das mtshan nyid (sarvatarkasamatikrāntalakṣaṇa) as a bahuvrīhi, which I believe is appropriate in the context of the passage in question.

2. Once a “technically correct” translation of the source text has been produced, Billeter advises us to
bring together the various elements of a sentence or a passage until we obtain a clear picture of what is said in the
source text. This step therefore consists in understanding the meaning of the translated passage by literally
seeing (or visualizing) its meaning. In a way, the first operation is about das Erklären (“explanation”), while the second concerns das Verstehen (“understanding”). In this sense, the latter uses the resources of one’s imagination and metalinguistic knowledge to establish connections with a web of meaning that
is not restricted to the translated sentence or passage alone.

The second operation is therefore a synthesis, a recognition of relations between meaning units of various
orders (one would think here of the idea conveyed by saṃjñā and
similar terms in which the upasarga
sam- plays a central role), whereas the first phase is analytical (in the sense
of vicāra, vicāraṇa,
and vijñāna, in which the upasarga vi- expresses the notion of taking apart). In fact, translators translate into the target language
their comprehension of the source text. They actually never translate the text itself but their understanding or
representation of ideas, situations, and emotions conveyed by a text. To illustrate this point, one could mention the
problem, encountered by scholars, of translating terms related to meditative practice. The Maitreya chapter of Saṃdhinirmocana is probably the most difficult to understand if one is not familiar
with Buddhist practice. Lamotte translates manasikāra with
“réflection,” while Frauwallner uses “Beobachtung” (lit. “observation”). Both these translation choices obfuscate the
meaning of what the term “directing one’s attention” actually denotes. This is not in itself a major issue, but if
such inaccuracies proliferate in the same passage or chapter, the meaning of the translation becomes unclear, although
it may well be technically correct on a syntactic level and lexicographical perspective (at least when it comes to
correctly identifying Tibetan technical terms on the basis of the Sanskrit).

In the context of pre-Dignāgean Buddhist logic, chapter 10 represents another case in point. This chapter is
indeed replete with abstruse concepts not belonging to the well-researched and documented later systems of Buddhist
logic. In this case, translating the many occurrences of the connective particle kyi in long compounds with the English preposition “of” will not help the reader much,
though it will certainly give the translators the peace of mind of having produced a “technically correct”
translation. However, I believe that translators have only two options here: (a) take a risk and, for example, tell us
if they actually understand the connective kyi in the sense of
“belonging to,” “resulting from,” “consisting of,” and so on; or (b) admit that they do not understand the source
text. In the case of the technical compounds found in chapter 10, I therefore tried to ask myself what these terms
actually referred to, what could have been the system of logic presented in these pages. For example, I read gzhan gyi rigs kyi dpe nye bar sbyar ba’i mtshan nyid (anyajātīyadṛṣṭāntopasaṃhāralakṣaṇa) as rendering into Tibetan a Sanskrit bahuvrīhi. As a
consequence, I translated this long compound with “[The logical proof] characterized by a demonstration through an
instance belonging to a different class [of phenomena]”

It goes without saying that these translations are at this stage provisional, as further research on the
subject matter is necessary. But in order to translate these technical terms, we cannot just give a technically
correct translation of a succession of words. Beyond the first phase of the work, which is purely analytical, we still
need to develop a mental representation of the situation presented in the text by establishing relations with a
context that might go beyond the text.

3. In the third operation, Billeter insists on the necessity for translators to become writers. They should
formulate in the target language their understanding of the source text as accurately and naturally as possible. At
this stage, translators should focus on literary elements of the translation, such as idioms, voice, and figures of
speech. According to Billeter, difficulties in writing accurately and naturally in the target language are often the
direct consequence of not having performed the second operation. The translation might well be technically correct,
but it still does not make sense, an experience all translators go through when they fail to understand the meaning
(or visualize the situation) referred to by the source text.

4. In the fourth operation, translators should reflect on the role played by linguistic constraints and conventions in the formulation of the source text as well as those imposed by the target
language. What options did the author of the text have in terms of expression? How would someone express the same
ideas in the target language? As a consequence, the notion of form and pragmatics in the target language becomes
central. To detail the various operations leading to an actual translation, Vinay and
Darbelnet’s model is useful.
Translators should first identify the units of translation in relation to the translation process: the lexicon (e.g.,
semantic values, objective and affective aspects, lexical associations and modulations), the syntactic structure
(e.g., transpositions between word classes, supplementation of pronouns or conjunctions, modifications in terms of
gender, number, characterization, tenses, voice, modality, and verbal aspects), and the message (e.g., meaning,
stylistics, pragmatics, topicalization, figures of speech, metalinguistic aspects, specific segmentation of reality).
Then, they should examine the descriptive, affective, and intellectual content of the units
of translation in the source text to reconstitute the situation at the origin of the message. These two first steps
correspond to Billeter’s two first operations. Finally, translators still have to formulate the message in the target
language without omitting any relevant element from the source language.

To achieve this, Vinay and Darbelnet argue that translators have only two methods: direct and oblique
translation. Direct translation includes three strategies:

– a. Borrowing: the term in the source language is used in the target language to overcome an

insuperable metalinguistic lacuna, or it is used because the term is also commonly used in the target
language. For instance, I use the Sanskrit bodhisattva and
nirvāṇa in my English translation.

– b. Calque: I translated bodhicitta with

“awakening mind,” which is both a lexical and structural calque.

– c. Literal translation: most lists and simple sentences are for

instance relatively unproblematic direct translations of the source language.

When a Literal translation fails to render the message, is structurally
impossible, or misleads the reader due to the lack of a corresponding expression belonging to the same register, one
should turn to an oblique translation method among the following strategies:

– d. Transposition: one replaces a word class by another. For example, the frequent nominalizations

of Sanskrit and Tibetan are turned into verb clauses. The highly technical nature of some terms makes it
necessary to reflect the Sanskrit as much as possible while “unpacking” what is a condensed compound. As an
illustration, I translated tadanyavairūpyopalabdhi with “a
perception that does not conform with anything other than the [thing to establish],” in which vairūpya is translated as a verb.

Our text is mostly written in the same way as a treatise (śāstra), reflecting what is referred to as the nominal style in Sanskrit, or scholastic
Sanskrit, in which the nominalization of verbal clauses by means of compounds or suffixes is common. As is
often the case in technical or hyperspecialized environments, processes or conceptual frameworks are
encapsulated as technical terms (often nouns) implying a complex or recurring pattern. As an analogy, think of
a medical term such as hemiglossectomy standing for a removal of a part of the tongue. The passive impersonal
phrase “a hemiglossectomy was performed on the patient at 11 pm” includes the nominalization of an action
through a compound (hemiglossectomy). It could be rewritten as “[the surgeon] removed a portion of the
patient’s tongue at 11 pm.” As can be seen from the translations of Lamotte and Frauwallner, nominalization
seems to be less of a problem in French and German than it is in modern (American) English in which
readability is more of a concern. When translating the Saṃdhinirmocana, I
therefore tried to turn nominal compounds common in scholastic Sanskrit into English verbal sentences by
transposing these compounds into verbal sentences. However, since the text is very technical (particularly
from Chapter 7 onward), I decided in some cases to keep nominal compounds that were indicative of a technical
term and not just a nontechnical action or state of affairs. For example, the text mentions throughout a
“concept” being referred to a “X” (see for instance

7.3–6). Just like the surgical term above, such complex nominal compounds stand for a
specific action or concept and are part of a “specialist’s jargon.” Turning these compounds into verbal
sentences might have the counterproductive effect of erasing an essential feature of this kind of literature
consisting in endless lists of often technical terms. Therefore, in this
particular case, it would probably be best to avoid transposition.

– e. Modulation: this strategy implies a change of perspective or standpoint made in order to avoid

an awkward rendering of the source language. In its simplest form, translating sla ba ma yin (D, folio 25.b,

)
with “it is difficult” is an illustration of an optional modulation. Any change of syntactic subject for the
sake of clarifying a sentence would be a modulation. Whether this decision is appropriate or not on the part
of the translator is something that one should evaluate on a case-by-case basis.

I would like to illustrate this point with issues related to the nidāna of the sūtra, in which
topicalization plays an important role. The first paragraph of the prologue is a presentation of the place
where the Buddha is dwelling. The topicalization of the temple (khang) is achieved through a succession of compounds, mainly bahuvrīhis. Lamotte’s translation
reflects this thematization to perfection. In contrast, Powers fails to topicalize
the palace to the same degree. In his translation, the logical subject of the several clauses describing this
palace is sometimes ambiguous. In this case, one should consider the fact that the Sanskrit structure of this
paragraph is built on a process of topicalization that we can easily render in English. In a word, we have no
reason to alter this literary device by inducing a modulation of the translation through a change of
perspective induced, for example, by a modification of the grammatical or logical subject in the target
language.

– f. Equivalence: the same situation can be expressed both in the source language and the target

language in completely different stylistic and structural ways due to the necessity to resort to idioms in
order to convey the message of the source text. For example, I translated evam etat (de de bzhin te/no)
literally with “so it is” in English, which is a slightly pompous and old-fashioned expression no one would
probably use today. Instead, one would probably say in an actual dialogue something
like “You are right, Dharmodgata” or “This is true, Dharmodgata.”

– g. Adaptation: this method aims at replacing altogether a reference to a situation in the source

language if it is completely unknown in the target language. I generally try to avoid adaptations while
translating, for the simple reason that one has to be certain that, for instance, two different metaphors or
examples refer to the same situation or object.

To conclude on this point, it seems to me that a number of fixed or technical expressions in the
Kangyur could be translated in a systematic way following Vinay and Darbelnet’s approach. This research would
establish a set of solid conventions that would improve accuracy and readability.

Returning to Billeter’s schema, in his fourth operation the translator should verify that what has been
translated into the target language corresponds to the meaning of the source text. Do the two texts express the same
idea? Do they produce the same effect on the reader? To answer these questions, Billeter recommends reading one’s text
aloud. During this operation, translators should also check whether the translation fits within a specific cultural
register in the target language. Discourses take place within a corpus of existing literature that is culturally
determined by centuries of textual production. Some statements from a different cultural background resonate through a
web of meaning, discursive practices, or literary figures of speech once expressed in the target language. In fact,
the web of meaning of the target language within which the translation is received finds its parallel in the web of
meaning within which the source text was produced. Within the source text and culture, concepts, ideas, and references
resonate throughout sentences, paragraphs, chapters, works, and genres. For example, some philosophical definitions
can represent intratextual and extratextual variations on a theme for which there is no metalinguistic context in the
target language. Translators therefore need to understand the text not only as a whole and in relation to its various
components, but also in connection with both the source and the target cultures. This is of course particularly true
of more “philosophical” texts for which it is essential to evaluate how the translation interacts with the webs of
meaning of the source and target cultures. Practically, it is important to cross check the consistency (or lack
thereof) of meaning units across the text while keeping in mind that the translation is also obviously culturally
situated. This process is fundamental because it facilitates the validation (or invalidation) of translation
hypotheses resulting from the two first steps of the translation process.

In the context of Saṃdhinirmocana, the problem is compounded by the fact
that the sūtra can be read as a collection of independent texts that would have been put together during the third or
fourth century ce. The academic community considers the sūtra as a highly composite
compilation lacking coherence from a philological perspective. Lamotte explains that the first four chapters represent a Prajñāpāramitā for the reasons mentioned above. He sees chapters 5 through 7 as forming a second group of
ideas found in the Prajñāpāramitā literature that influenced the Yogācāra school.
Finally, he considers chapters 8 through 10 to be later additions.

It is undeniable that the various recensions in Tibetan and Chinese refer to texts that are quite different
in structure. For instance, Paramārtha’s translation includes only the first four chapters, which, according to
Lamotte, might have originally formed an independent sūtra. In addition, it is obvious that the ten chapters of Saṃdhinirmocana do not follow a consistent textual pattern. The first six have no
title. They are concluded by a few summarizing gāthās and a standard
formula indicating the name of the person who questioned the Buddha and the number of
the chapter (e.g., “This was the chapter of Guṇākara—the sixth chapter”). Chapter 7 has a whole summary of the chapter
in the form of a supplement right after the concluding gāthās, while in chapter 10 the Buddha is questioned on
complementary topics once the concluded gāthās have been proclaimed. Chapters 7, 8, 9, and 10 each come to an end with
a nītārthanirdeśa (instruction of definitive meaning) on the chapter
topic. This nītārthanirdeśa is referred to as a Saṃdhinirmocana and used as the chapter title. On account of this,
Lamotte surmises that there might have originally been several independent Saṃdhinirmocanasūtras that came to be grouped together as the text we know today.

One should also note that the dialogue structure of chapters 1 through 7 differs from that of chapters 8
through 10. In the first group, the Buddha elaborates on a topic in the form of a monologue once his interlocutor has
questioned him on a specific topic, whereas in the second group a dialogue takes place through short questions and
answers. As a consequence of all these philological divergences, one has to conclude that the text is rather composite
in nature and probably the result of a succession of additions and adjustments. In a word, I agree with Schmithausen
that Saṃdhinirmocana is not an organic whole that would have been composed from the
onset in its present form and that its chapters are not mutually dependent. However, this hypothesis should ideally be
the object of further research by a team following an approach similar to that of Professor
Jonathan Silk’s European Research Council project “Open Philology — The Composition of Buddhist Scriptures” at the
University of Leiden, to which I have had the good fortune to take part. The multiformity and intertextuality of
Mahāyāna sūtras are not the result of a linear development from an Ur-text but the expression of oral-formulaic
processes of composition and transmission. For our research program focusing on the Ratnakūṭa collection of sūtras, we have been developing digital and philological tools to identify,
analyze, and map the fluidity and modularity of Mahāyāna texts. By using these tools, we could better understand the
historical development of the complex textual environment of the Saṃdhinirmocana,
which includes several translations and many witnesses of this work.

From the perspective of the narrative and doctrinal content of the Tibetan translation, a somewhat different
picture emerges. Even if each chapter does not depend on all others in terms of meaning, there is definitely a
progression with regard to the flow of thought in Saṃdhinirmocana insofar as later chapters do depend on the definitions and lines of thinking posited in the former chapters, a central fact for translators of this complex text. We can
perceive this continuity in the intratextual cross-references that create a terminological resonance echoing
throughout the text. Unraveling these cross-references is as important during the translation process as noting the
textual variations indicating a deviation from a specific literary pattern. While translating I thus tried to evaluate
the text in terms of regularities and discontinuities in the use of definitions and the flow of meaning unfolding
throughout the text. One should therefore temper the impression that the text has been “patched” together on the basis
of loosely related texts on the basis of philological arguments whose significance is difficult to assess. For
example, the fact that chapter 1 is the only chapter in which a dialogue occurs between two bodhisattvas has never
been mentioned by any researcher as a textual inconsistency preventing them from considering the first four chapters
as a coherent whole. Minor divergences should therefore not deter us from asking ourselves why these chapters were
taught or put together in the first place. I would like to illustrate with a few concrete examples the doctrinal
coherence of the text. The term ādānavijñāna in

is also found in

8.37.1.i; the model of the three kinds of essencelessness (niḥsvabhāvatā) of chapter 7 corresponds to the model of the three defining characteristics
(lakṣaṇa) of chapter 6, of which two are foreshadowed in

through the terms parikalpa (kun tu rtog pa) and *apariniṣpanna (yongs su ma grub
pa); the other-dependent defining characteristic (paratantralakṣaṇa) introduced in chapter 6 is mentioned in

; chapter 8 presupposes chapters 5 and 6; the concluding paragraphs of

and

are almost identical; as noted by Schmithausen, saṃskāranimitta is referred to in similar ways in both

and

7.25–27; *viśuddhyālambana is mentioned with the same
function in

,

,

7.25–27, and

;

10.7.2 refers to the seven aspects of true
reality (tathatā) defined in

8.20.2;

and

10.7.4.ii contain the same formulation; the famous quote
“Whether tathāgatas…” is found in

,

, and

10.7.4.vii.d;

5.1–6;

enumerates the domains as in

.

On account of the elements adduced above and with Davidson’s principle of charity in mind, I would like to
formulate the hypothesis that there is a good reason why these chapters are found in this order: the structure of the
text as we know it today is necessary to provide Mahāyāna practitioners with a systematic teaching on ⁽¹⁾ ultimate
reality qua basis, which is the nondual inexpressible domain of gnosis (chapters 1 through 4), ⁽²⁾ the path to
awakening from the domain of mind to the domain of gnosis (chapters 5 through 9), and ⁽³⁾ ultimate reality qua result
of the path, which represents a shift in one’s basis of existence as one attains the domain of gnosis (chapter 10).

Indeed, it seems impossible to deny that, considered as a single text (and not as a succession of independent
texts), the Saṃdhinirmocana aims at providing a systematic teaching on the Single
Vehicle through the three aspects of basis, path, and result in order to solve seeming contradictions and quandaries
in doctrines that were of primary importance for followers of the Great Vehicle (e.g., the two truths in chapter 3 and
meditative practice in chapter 8). Now, if we read the Saṃdhinirmocana as a single
text, we have to confront the web of meaning found in this text in its entirety with the web of meaning of the target
culture in order to avoid potential misunderstandings.

This operation has a major impact on the translation of some key terms, such as vijñaptimātra. Since idealism (in the sense that mind is an unchanging essence) is not an
option given the teaching imparted in this sūtra, I tried to avoid any potential confusion resulting from an
unfortunate choice of terminology. In a word, I would rather stay on the safe side than insert in my translation a
potentially misleading term. As a consequence, I decided to translate vijñaptimātra as “a mere representation” instead of using nominalizations such as “cognition-only.” The
first expression is relatively unambiguous in the target culture as it minimizes the risk of misunderstanding the
message of the text. Another option would be “just a representation.” These formulations mitigate the risk of
superimposing an essence on what is meant by vijñapti. The formulation “cognition-only” in the sense of “pure
cognition” is in contrast ambivalent. It could also (but not necessarily) signify that only cognition truly exists and
by extension, that only mind exists as an essence.

In the last step of the translation process, Billeter recommends that translators perform various operations
aiming at polishing the translation, such as replicating the possible effects of semantic resonance throughout the
text, improving the connection between sentences and paragraphs, modifying the order of clauses, solving problems of
euphony, or editing the translation to make it clearer and simpler by chunking long sentences or eliminating
repetitions. To illustrate one of these various tasks in the context of the present project, I decided to review all
the terminology pertaining to the semantic field of insight (vipaśyanā) after I had finished translating the entire text. I took as a starting point

, in which vipaśyanā
is defined by means of a series of technical terms, such as pratyavekṣaṇa, vibhājanā, pravicaya,
paritarka
, parimīmāṃsā, nitīraṇa,
and vitarka. I first tried to find the best translation for each term
in the context of this chapter. Next, I checked the usage of all these terms and other related concepts (e.g.,
pratisaṃkhyā) throughout the text to standardize the
corresponding English terminology. I also tried to minimize the use of square brackets indicating additions to the
text when these additions were logically implied by the source text. A typology of such situations would include
various operations, such as breaking down a compound, clarifying an abbreviated form corresponding to a well-attested
collocation, stating a logical subject, object, or verb that is elided in the source text,
mentioning the number of a technical term that usually comes as a list of individual items.

Through all these operations, my aim has been to maximize both accuracy and readability while maintaining the
consistency of the very systematic presentation of the Great Vehicle developed in the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra. This text is important in this spiritual tradition since it condenses all aspects
of Mahāyāna. I hope that this translation will contribute to improve our understanding of the interplay between
liberation as a path and primordial freedom as the ground of being.

The Translation

The Noble Great Vehicle Sūtra

Unraveling the Intent

Prologue

Homage to all buddhas and bodhisattvas!

Thus did I hear at one time. The Blessed One was dwelling in an unfathomable palace, built with the
blazing seven precious substances, that emitted great light rays suffusing countless
universes. Each of its rooms was
well arranged and its design was infinite. It was the undivided maṇḍala, the domain transcending the three worlds. Arising
from the supreme roots of virtue of the one who transcends the world, it was characterized by the perfectly pure cognition of the one who
has achieved complete mastery. Abode of the
Tathāgata where the assembly of innumerable bodhisattvas gathered, it was attended by countless gods, nāgas, yakṣas, gandharvas, demigods, garuḍas, kinnaras, mahoragas, humans, and
nonhumans. Supported by the great joy and bliss of savoring the Dharma and designed to accomplish the complete welfare of all
beings, it was free of any harm caused by the stains of afflictions and clear of any demon. Surpassing all
manifestations, this unfathomable palace was displayed by the sovereign
power of the Tathāgata. Mindfulness, intelligence, and realization
were its pathway; mental stillness and insight were the vehicle leading to it;
the great gates of liberation—emptiness, appearancelessness, and wishlessness—were its entrance. It was set on foundations
adorned with an infinite accumulation of excellent qualities, which were like great kings of jeweled lotuses.

The Blessed One had a perfectly realized mind and was free from dualistic behavior. Absorbed in the Dharma
of the nonexistence of defining characteristics, he was residing in the domain of the buddhas. He had attained equality with
all buddhas. His realization was unobstructed and his qualities were irreversible. He could not be overcome by objects of experience. His abode was
inconceivable. Perfectly skilled in the sameness of the three times, his five
bodies were present in all worlds. His knowledge of all phenomena was free from doubt. He understood all practices. His
knowledge of phenomena was without uncertainty. His body was
unimaginable. He possessed the gnosis bodhisattvas vow to accomplish. He had attained the nondual abode
of the buddhas, the sublime perfection, the supreme indivisible gnosis of the Tathāgata’s liberation. He had realized the sameness [of all phenomena], the
state of a buddha in which there is neither a center nor a periphery, and reached the ultimate within the domain of
truth, the point where the sphere of space ends.

The Blessed One was accompanied by the entire immeasurable assembly of hearers. Children of noble family,
they were the heirs of the Buddha. Their minds were liberated, their wisdom was emancipated, and their discipline was
completely pure. They happily gathered with those who longed for the Dharma. They had heard much, kept in
mind what they had heard, and accumulated [merit from] what they had heard. They excelled in thought, speech, and
deeds. Their wisdom was swift, quick, sharp, emancipating,
discerning,
vast, extensive, profound, and unequaled. They possessed the jewel of wisdom and the three forms of
knowledge.
They had attained the supreme state of happiness in this life. The purity of their merit, the excellence of their peaceful conduct, their
patience, and their gentleness were vast. They were fully engaged in the
teaching of the Tathāgata.

The Blessed One was also accompanied by all the innumerable bodhisattvas assembled from various buddha
realms. Firmly settled and engaged in a vast state, they had gone
forth through the Dharma of the Great Vehicle. Impartial toward all
beings, they were free from all conceptions, conceptualizations, and fabrications. Victorious
over all demons and opposition, they were not involved with the considerations of the hearers and solitary
realizers. Steadfast through the great joy and happiness of
savoring the Dharma, they were free from the five great fears.
Solely progressing toward the stages from which there is no regression, they had perfectly actualized the stage in which one
pacifies the torment of beings. Among them were thus the bodhisattva mahāsattvas Gambhīrārthasaṃdhinirmocana,
Vidhivatparipṛcchaka, Dharmodgata, Suviśuddhamati, Viśālamati, Guṇākara, Paramārthasamudgata, Āryāvalokiteśvara,
Maitreya, and Mañjuśrī.

Chapter 1

At that time, the bodhisattva Vidhivatparipṛcchaka questioned the bodhisattva
Gambhīrārthasaṃdhinirmocana on the ultimate whose defining characteristic is inexpressible and nondual: “O son of the Victorious One, when it is said that all phenomena are nondual, what
are these phenomena? In what way are they nondual?”

Gambhīrārthasaṃdhinirmocana replied, “Noble son, all phenomena, what we refer to as all
phenomena, are of just two kinds: conditioned and unconditioned. With respect to these, the conditioned is
neither conditioned nor unconditioned. The unconditioned is neither unconditioned nor conditioned.”

Vidhivatparipṛcchaka inquired, “O son of the Victorious One, why is the conditioned neither conditioned
nor unconditioned and the unconditioned neither unconditioned nor conditioned?”

Gambhīrārthasaṃdhinirmocana answered, “Noble son, the term conditioned is a word, a label
used by the Teacher. Words that are labels used by the Teacher are conventional expressions arising from imagination. These
conventional expressions arising from imagination are always unreal conventional expressions arising from imagination in its diversity. Therefore, the term
conditioned is not the conditioned.
Noble son, the term unconditioned is also included within conventions, just as expressions other than
conditioned and unconditioned are and will [always] be. One might object that
there is, however, no expression in the absence of the object [to which it refers]. What is then this object? It is the
complete and perfect awakening to inexpressible [reality] through the sublime gnosis and vision of the noble ones. But in order to lead [others] to the perfect realization of this very
inexpressible nature of phenomena, the Teacher labels
this object with the term conditioned.

“Noble son, the term unconditioned is also a word, a label used by the Teacher. Words
that are labels used by the Teacher are conventional expressions arising from imagination. These
conventional expressions arising from imagination are always conventional expressions deprived of any actuality that arise
from imagination in its diversity. Therefore, the term unconditioned is not the unconditioned. Noble son,
the term conditioned is also included within conventions, just as expressions other than
conditioned and unconditioned are and will [always] be. One might object that
there is, however, no expression in the absence of the object [to which it refers]. What is then this object? It is the
complete and perfect awakening to inexpressible [reality] through the sublime gnosis and vision of the noble ones. But in
order to lead [others] to the perfect realization of this very inexpressible nature of phenomena, the Teacher labels this
object with the term unconditioned.”

Vidhivatparipṛcchaka asked, “O son of the Victorious One, as the noble ones completely and perfectly
awaken to inexpressible [reality] through their sublime gnosis and perception, why do they label this object with the terms conditioned and
unconditioned in order to lead [others] to the perfect realization of this very inexpressible nature
of phenomena?”

Gambhīrārthasaṃdhinirmocana replied, “Noble son, it is like the following example: A magician or his skillful
apprentice, finding himself at the juncture of four great roads, assembles grass, leaves, twigs, pebbles, or stones and
produces all kinds of magic illusions, such as regiments of elephants, horses, chariots, and soldiers or collections of
jewels, pearls, beryl, seashells, crystal, and coral, as well as an abundance of wealth and grain in treasuries and granaries.
At that time, in the presence of these illusions, those who are naive, slow-witted, or confused, not perceiving the grass,
leaves, twigs, pebbles, or stones, see and hear those magical tricks and think that whatever appears exists—that these
regiments of elephants, horses, chariots, and soldiers or collections of jewels, pearls, beryl, seashells, crystal, and coral,
as well as this abundance of wealth and grain, treasuries and granaries, exist. Clinging to these magical illusions according
to the way they see and hear things and strongly believing in them, they express themselves through conventions, such as ‘This
one is true but the other is false.’ They still need to examine these illusions.

“Those who are not naive or confused but have wisdom perceive the grass, leaves, twigs, pebbles, or stones. They see
and hear those magical tricks and understand that whatever appears does not exist—that these regiments of elephants, horses,
chariots, and soldiers or collections of jewels, pearls, beryl, seashells, crystal, and coral, as well as this abundance of
wealth and grain, treasuries and granaries, do not exist. Yet,
they understand that the conception of an elephant regiment exists since its manifestation as a conception through an
expedient exists, as do the manifestations as conceptions of regiments of horses,
chariots, and soldiers or collections of jewels, pearls, beryl, seashells, crystal, and coral, as well as this abundance of
wealth and grain, treasuries and granaries, together with other similar manifestations. So they understand that all those
magical illusions, these magic illusions deceiving the eye, exist [in the way magical illusions do]. Thinking in this way, [these
wise beings] do not express themselves through conventions, such as ‘This one is true but the other is false,’ on account of
clinging to these magical illusions in the way they see and hear things and thus strongly believing in them. However, they do express themselves through
conventions in order to convey the true nature [of these illusions to others], although they do not need to further examine these
illusions.

Likewise, some childish or ordinary beings have not attained the transcendent sublime wisdom. They have
not understood that the nature of all phenomena is inexpressible. When those beings perceive conditioned and
unconditioned phenomena, they believe that whatever appears as a conditioned or unconditioned phenomenon exists, and they
express themselves through conventions, such as ‘This one is true but the other is false,’ on account of clinging to these
appearances according to the way they see and hear things and thus strongly believing in them. They still need to examine
these appearances.

“With regard to this, some beings who are not childish and have seen the truth have attained the
transcendent sublime wisdom. They have understood that the nature of all phenomena is inexpressible. When they perceive
conditioned and unconditioned phenomena, they believe that whatever appears as a conditioned or unconditioned phenomenon does
not exist. However, with respect to these appearances, they think that the conceptions in terms of conditioned and
unconditioned, the manifestation of conceptions through an
expedient in terms of conditioned and unconditioned, the occurrence of conceptualization, and the phenomenal appearance of
conditioned phenomena exist in the way magical illusions do. That which deludes the mind exists [in the way magical illusions
do]. Thinking in that way, they do not express
themselves through conventions, such as ‘This one is true but the other is false,’ on account of clinging to these appearances
according to the way they see and hear things and thus strongly believing in them. However, they do express themselves through
conventions in order to convey the true nature [of these appearances to others], although they do not need to further examine
these appearances.

“Noble son, the noble ones are thus completely and perfectly awakened to inexpressible [reality] through their
sublime gnosis and vision of this object, but in order to lead [others] to the perfect realization of this very inexpressible
nature of phenomena, they label this object with the terms conditioned and
unconditioned.”

At that time, the bodhisattva Gambhīrārthasaṃdhinirmocana recited these verses:

“The profound, which is inaccessible to foolish beings,

Inexpressible and nondual, has been taught by the Victorious One.

Yet, fools deluded by ignorance

Take delight in mental elaborations and dwell on duality.

“Deprived of understanding, afflicted by misunderstanding,

They will be reborn as sheep or oxen.

Casting aside the words of the wise,

They will wander in saṃsāra for a great length of time.”

This was the chapter of the bodhisattva Gambhīrārthasaṃdhinirmocana—the first chapter.

Chapter 2

Then the bodhisattva Dharmodgata spoke these words: “Blessed One, very long ago in ancient times, beyond
as many universes as there are grains of sand in seventy-seven Ganges rivers, I was residing in the world Kīrtimat of the
tathāgata Viśālakīrti. There I saw 7,700,000 non-Buddhists, together with their teachers, who had gathered in one place to
consider the ultimate defining characteristic of phenomena.
Although they had examined, analyzed, investigated, and considered in detail the ultimate defining characteristic of phenomena, they
did not understand it. They had changing opinions, lacked certainty, and were slow-witted as well as argumentative. Insulting
one another with harsh words, they became abusive, agitated, unprincipled, and violent. Then, Blessed One, I thought to
myself, ‘This is so sad, and yet, how marvelous, how wonderful are the manifestations of the tathāgatas in the world and,
through their manifestations, the realization and actualization of the ultimate whose defining characteristic is beyond all
speculation!’ ”

The Blessed One answered to the bodhisattva Dharmodgata: “So it is, Dharmodgata. So it is. I have
completely and perfectly awakened to the ultimate characterized as being beyond all speculation. Yet, after I attained complete and perfect awakening, I communicated through words, gave
explanations, established distinctions, expressed myself through conventions, and imparted teachings. One might ask why I did
this. I have explained that the ultimate is what is cognized by noble beings in a personal and intuitive way,
whereas ordinary beings’ knowledge [resulting from interacting] with one another belongs to the domain of speculation.
Therefore, Dharmodgata, you should know in this way through this approach that the ultimate is what is characterized as
transcending all speculation. Moreover, Dharmodgata, I have explained that the ultimate represents the domain in which there
is no phenomenal appearance, whereas speculation is the domain of phenomenal appearance. Therefore, Dharmodgata, you should
know in this way through this approach that the ultimate is
what is characterized as transcending all speculation. Moreover, Dharmodgata, I have explained that the ultimate is
inexpressible, whereas speculation is the domain of verbalization. Therefore, Dharmodgata, you should know in this way through
this approach that the ultimate is what is characterized as transcending all speculation. Moreover, Dharmodgata, I have
explained that the ultimate is free from all conventions, whereas speculation is the domain of conventions. Therefore,
Dharmodgata, you should know in this way through this approach that the ultimate is what is characterized as transcending all
speculation. Moreover, Dharmodgata, I have explained that the ultimate is devoid of argumentative disputation, whereas
speculation is the domain of argumentative disputation. Therefore, Dharmodgata, you should know in this way through this
approach that the ultimate is what is characterized as transcending all speculation.

“Dharmodgata, it is like this: beings who have only tasted pungent or bitter flavors their entire lives
cannot imagine, infer, or appreciate the taste of honey and sugar. Those who have indulged in desire and have been burnt by
the torment of desire for a long time cannot imagine, infer, or appreciate the inner happiness of the recluse, which is
independent from all phenomenal appearances related to form, sound, smell, taste, and contact. Those who have indulged and
taken delight in conversations for a long time cannot imagine, infer, or appreciate the inner happiness of the noble beings
who remain silent. Those who have indulged and taken delight in conventions for a long time through seeing, hearing,
discriminating, and cognizing cannot imagine, infer, or appreciate the cessation of all conventions, the nirvāṇa that is the
extinction of transitory aggregates. Dharmodgata, it is
like this: Those who have indulged and taken delight in argumentative disputations for a long time on account of their
attachment to the self cannot imagine, infer, or appreciate that there is no attachment to the self and no argumentative
disputations in Uttarakuru.

“Dharmodgata, likewise, those who [have indulged for a long time in] speculation cannot imagine, infer, or appreciate
the ultimate whose defining characteristic transcends all speculation.”

Then, at that moment, the Blessed One spoke these verses:

“It is the domain whose characteristic must be intuitively cognized,

Beyond all expressions, apart from all conventions,

And free from argumentative disputations—

Such is the ultimate whose characteristic transcends all speculation.”

This was the chapter of the bodhisattva Dharmodgata—the second chapter.

Chapter 3

Then the bodhisattva Suviśuddhamati addressed the Blessed One, “Blessed One, at an earlier time, you
spoke these words: ‘The ultimate is subtle and profound. Characterized as transcending what is distinct or indistinct [from conditioned
phenomena], it is difficult to understand.’ How wonderful indeed are these words
of yours! Blessed One, regarding this point, I once saw many bodhisattvas who, having attained the stage of engagement through
aspiration, assembled in one place to discuss in the following way whether conditioned
phenomena and the ultimate are distinct or indistinct. Among them, some declared, ‘The defining characteristic of conditioned
phenomena and the defining characteristic of the ultimate are indistinct.’ Others replied, ‘It is not the case that the defining characteristic of
conditioned phenomena and the defining characteristic of the ultimate are indistinct, for they are distinct indeed.’ Some others, who were perplexed and lacked certainty, said,
‘Some pretend that the defining characteristic of conditioned phenomena and the defining characteristic of the ultimate are
distinct. Some pretend that they are indistinct. Which bodhisattvas speak the truth? Which speak falsity? Which are mistaken?
Which are not?’ Blessed One, I thought to myself, ‘So, none of these noble sons understands the ultimate whose subtle defining
characteristic transcends whether it is distinct or indistinct from conditioned phenomena. These bodhisattvas are truly
naive, confused, dull, unskilled, and mistaken.’ ”

The Blessed One replied to the bodhisattva Suviśuddhamati, “So it is, Suviśuddhamati. So it is.
Indeed, none of these noble sons understands the ultimate whose subtle defining characteristic transcends whether it is
distinct or indistinct from conditioned phenomena. These [bodhisattvas] are truly naive, confused, dull, unskilled, and
mistaken. Why is this so? Suviśuddhamati, it is because those who
analyze
conditioned phenomena in this way neither realize nor actualize the ultimate.

“Why? Suviśuddhamati, if the defining characteristic of conditioned phenomena and the defining
characteristic of the ultimate were indistinct, [even] spiritually immature people—all ordinary beings—would, as a
consequence, realize the truth. As mere ordinary beings,
not only would they attain nirvāṇa, the unsurpassable
good, but they would also fully and completely awaken to unsurpassable complete and perfect
awakening.

“If the defining characteristic of conditioned phenomena and the defining characteristic of the ultimate were
distinct, even those who realize the truth would, as a consequence, not be detached from the phenomenal appearances of
conditioned phenomena. Since they would not be detached from the phenomenal appearances of conditioned phenomena, they would
also not be liberated from the bondage of phenomenal appearances. If they were not liberated from the bondage of phenomenal
appearances, they would not be liberated from the bondage of corruption. If they were not liberated from these two kinds of
bondage, those who realize the truth would neither attain nirvāṇa, the unsurpassable good, nor fully and completely awaken to
the unsurpassable complete and perfect awakening.

“Suviśuddhamati, ordinary beings do not realize the truth and, as mere ordinary beings, neither do they attain nirvāṇa, the unsurpassable good, nor do
they fully and completely awaken to the unsurpassable complete and perfect awakening. For these reasons, it is not correct to
say that the defining characteristic of conditioned phenomena and the defining characteristic of the ultimate are indistinct.
Regarding this point, you should know through this approach that those who consider the defining characteristic of conditioned
phenomena and the defining characteristic of the ultimate to be indistinct are not right but wrong.

“Suviśuddhamati, it is not the case that those who realize the truth are not detached from the phenomenal
appearance of conditioned phenomena, for they are indeed detached from it. Neither are
they not liberated from the bondage of phenomenal appearance, for they are indeed liberated from it. Nor are they not
liberated from the bondage of corruption, for they are indeed liberated from it. Since they are liberated from these two kinds
of bondage, not only do they attain nirvāṇa, the unsurpassable
good, but they will also fully and completely awaken to the unsurpassable complete and perfect awakening. For all these reasons, it is not correct to say that the defining characteristic of
conditioned phenomena and the defining characteristic of the ultimate are distinct. Regarding this point, you should know
through this approach that those who consider the defining characteristic of conditioned phenomena and the defining
characteristic of the ultimate to be distinct are not right but wrong.

“Moreover, Suviśuddhamati, if the defining characteristic of conditioned phenomena and the defining
characteristic of the ultimate were indistinct, then, just as the defining characteristic of conditioned phenomena is
encompassed by the defining characteristic of affliction, so too would the defining characteristic of the ultimate be included
in the defining characteristic of affliction.

“However, Suviśuddhamati, if the defining characteristic of conditioned phenomena and the defining characteristic
of the ultimate were distinct, then the defining characteristic of the ultimate could not be the universal defining
characteristic within all the defining characteristics of conditioned phenomena.

“Suviśuddhamati, the defining characteristic of the ultimate is not encompassed by the defining characteristic of
affliction, and the defining characteristic of the ultimate is the universal defining characteristic within all the defining
characteristics of conditioned phenomena. For these reasons, it is not correct to say that the defining characteristic of
conditioned phenomena and the defining characteristic of the ultimate are either indistinct or distinct. Regarding this point,
you should know through this approach that those pretending that the defining characteristic of conditioned phenomena and the
defining characteristic of the ultimate are indistinct or distinct are not right but wrong.

“Moreover, Suviśuddhamati, if the defining characteristic of conditioned phenomena and the defining
characteristic of the ultimate were not distinct, then, just as
the defining characteristic of the ultimate is not specific to any defining characteristic of conditioned phenomena, so too
would all defining characteristics of conditioned phenomena not be specific to any conditioned phenomenon, and yogis would
also not look for the ultimate beyond whatever they see, hear, distinguish, or know with regard to conditioned phenomena.

“However, Suviśuddhamati, if the defining characteristic of conditioned phenomena and the defining characteristic
of the ultimate were distinct, then, the mere selflessness and essencelessness of conditioned phenomena would not be the
defining characteristic of the ultimate. The defining characteristic of affliction and the defining characteristic of purity
themselves would be simultaneously established as distinct defining characteristics of conditioned phenomena.

“Suviśuddhamati, the defining characteristics of conditioned phenomena are specific and not unspecific to
conditioned phenomena; yogis do look for the ultimate beyond whatever they see, hear, distinguish, or know with regard to
conditioned phenomena; the ultimate is indeed characterized by the mere
selflessness and essencelessness of conditioned phenomena; and the defining characteristic of affliction and the defining
characteristic of purity also are not simultaneously established as distinct defining characteristics of conditioned
phenomena. For all these reasons, it is not correct to say that the defining characteristic of conditioned phenomena and the
defining characteristic of the ultimate are neither indistinct nor distinct. Regarding this point, you should know through
these approaches that those pretending that the defining characteristic of conditioned phenomena and the defining
characteristic of the ultimate are indistinct or distinct are not right but wrong.

“Suviśuddhamati, it is like this: It is not easy to decide whether the whiteness of the conch is distinct or indistinct from
the defining characteristic of the conch, likewise with the yellowness of gold. It is not easy to decide whether the quality
of the sound produced by a vīṇā is distinct or indistinct from
the defining characteristic of sound, likewise with aloe and its fragrance, pepper and its heat, myrobalan and its
astringency, cotton and its softness, and clarified butter and butter. Thus it is not easy to decide whether the impermanence
of all conditioned phenomena is distinct or indistinct from the defining characteristic of conditioned phenomena, likewise
with the suffering of all beings with outflows and the defining characteristic of beings with outflows, as well as the
selflessness of all phenomena and the defining characteristic of phenomena.

“Suviśuddhamati, it is like this: It is not easy to decide whether the defining characteristic of restless desire
and the defining characteristic of afflictions are distinct or indistinct from the defining characteristic of desire. You
should know it is just like this with anger and delusion too. Likewise, Suviśuddhamati, you should not see anything
good in deciding whether the defining characteristic of conditioned phenomena and the
defining characteristic of the ultimate are distinct or indistinct. In this way, Suviśuddhamati, I have completely and fully
awakened to the ultimate that is subtle, extremely subtle, [profound], extremely profound, difficult to understand, extremely
difficult to understand, and characterized as transcending being distinct or indistinct from conditioned phenomena. Yet, after I attained complete and perfect
awakening, I communicated through words, gave explanations, established distinctions, expressed myself through conventions,
and imparted teachings.”

Then, at that moment, the Blessed One spoke these verses:

“The defining characteristics of the domains of conditioned phenomena and of the ultimate

Are free from being distinct or indistinct.

Those who imagine them to be distinct or indistinct are mistaken.

“As beings practice mental stillness and insight,

They will be liberated from the bonds of corruption

And the bonds of phenomenal appearance.”

This was the chapter of the bodhisattva Suviśuddhamati—the third chapter.

Chapter 4

Then the Blessed One spoke these words to Subhūti: “Subhūti, do you know how many beings in
the world display their
knowledge under the influence of conceit? Do you know how many
beings in the world display their knowledge without conceit?”

Subhūti answered, “Blessed One, according to my knowledge, there are only a few in the world of beings
who present their knowledge without conceit, but countless, innumerable, and inexpressible in number are those who do so under
its influence. Blessed One, at one time I was staying in a hermitage set in a great forest. There were many monks living in
the vicinity who had also established themselves there. At sunrise, I saw them gather together.
They showed their knowledge and revealed their understanding by taking various aspects of phenomena as referential
objects.

“Some showed their knowledge by taking the five aggregates as referential objects: their phenomenal
appearance, their arising, their disintegration, their
cessation, and the acknowledgment of their cessation. In the same way, some showed their knowledge by taking the twelve sense
domains as referential objects, some by taking dependent arising as a referential object. Some showed their knowledge by
taking the four kinds of sustenance as referential objects: their phenomenal appearance, their arising, their disintegration,
their cessation, and the acknowledgment of their cessation.

“Some showed their knowledge by taking the four noble truths as referential objects: their defining
characteristic, the comprehension of suffering, the abandoning of the cause of suffering, the actualization of the cessation
of suffering, and the practice of the path.

“Some showed their knowledge by taking the eighteen constituents as referential objects: their phenomenal
appearance, their varieties, their manifoldness, their cessation, and the actualization of their cessation.

“Some showed their knowledge by taking the four applications of mindfulness as referential objects: their
phenomenal appearance, their adverse factors, their antidotes, their practice, their arising from having been non-arisen,
their remaining after they arose, and their maintaining, resuming, or increasing. In the same way, some showed their knowledge
by taking as referential objects the four correct
self-restraints, as well as the four bases of supernatural powers, the five
faculties, the five forces, and the seven branches of awakening. Some showed their knowledge by taking as referential objects
the eight branches of the noble path: their phenomenal
appearance, the antidotes to their adverse factors, their practice, their arising from having been non-arisen, their remaining
after they arose, and their maintaining, resuming, or increasing.

“Then I thought to myself, ‘These venerable monks displayed their knowledge by revealing their
understanding by taking various aspects of phenomena as referential objects, but they have not perceived the ultimate, whose
defining characteristic is of a single nature
everywhere.’ These venerable persons have conceit and, without doubt, display their knowledge under the influence of conceit.
Blessed One, at an earlier time, you spoke these words: ‘The ultimate is subtle, profound, difficult to understand, extremely
difficult to understand, and characterized as being of a single nature everywhere.’ How wonderful indeed are
these very words of yours! Blessed One, if even those who practice your teaching, such as these beings who became
monks, find it difficult to understand in this way the ultimate whose defining characteristic is of a single nature
everywhere, what need is there to mention how difficult it is for those outsiders who do not follow your teaching?”

The Blessed One replied, “So it is, Subhūti. So it is. I have completely and fully awakened to the
ultimate that, being characterized as being of a single nature everywhere, is subtle, extremely subtle, profound, extremely
profound, difficult to understand, and extremely difficult to understand. Yet, after I attained complete and perfect
awakening, I communicated through words, gave explanations,
established distinctions, expressed myself through conventions, and imparted teachings. One might ask why I did this.

“Subhūti, it is because I teach that the ultimate is the referential object conducive to purification within the aggregates, as well as
within the sense domains, dependent arising, the sustenances, the truths, the constituents, the applications of mindfulness,
the self-restraints, the bases of supernatural powers, the faculties, the forces, the branches of
awakening, and, Subhūti, the eightfold path. This referential object conducive to purification within the aggregates is of a
single nature everywhere and its defining characteristic is not different from theirs. It is just the same from the sense
domains up to the eightfold path: the referential object conducive to purification within these various referential objects is
of a single nature everywhere and its defining characteristic is not different from theirs. Subhūti, through this approach,
you should thus know that what is characterized as being of a single nature everywhere is the ultimate.

“Moreover, Subhūti, once renunciants who practice yoga have realized in reference to a single aggregate
the selflessness of phenomena, which is the ultimate reality, they do not look for this ultimate reality, this selflessness, individually within the other
aggregates or in the sense domains, dependent arising, the sustenances, the truths, the constituents, the applications of
mindfulness, the self-restraints, the bases of supernatural powers, the faculties, the forces, the
branches of awakening, and the eightfold path. Instead, they rely upon the nondual gnosis that is in accordance
with true reality. Through this alone,
they infallibly ascertain and realize the ultimate,
characterized as being of a single nature everywhere. Subhūti, through this approach, you should thus know that what is
characterized as being of a single nature everywhere is the ultimate.

“Moreover, Subhūti, if ultimate reality itself, the selflessness of phenomena, had a defining
characteristic distinct [from the defining characteristics of phenomena] in the way the aggregates, the sense domains,
dependent arising, the sustenances, the truths, the constituents, the applications of mindfulness, the self-restraints, the
bases of supernatural powers, the faculties, the forces, the branches of awakening, and the
eightfold path have defining characteristics distinct from one another, then, on account of this, ultimate reality itself, the
selflessness of phenomena, would have causes and arise from causes. If it arose from causes, it would be conditioned. If it
were the conditioned, it would not be the ultimate. If it were not the ultimate, one would need to look for some other
ultimate. Subhūti, this ultimate, the selflessness of phenomena, does not arise from causes. It is not conditioned. Neither is
it the case that it is not the ultimate. One must [therefore] not look for an ultimate other than that ultimate. Thus, whether
tathāgatas manifest or not, because it is the case that it permanently and immutably abides within phenomena, only this nature
of phenomena, this constituent abiding in phenomena, is constant. Subhūti, for all these reasons, you should know through this approach that the ultimate is
characterized as being of a single nature everywhere.

“Subhūti, it is like this: although there are many varieties of forms with distinct defining
characteristics within space, since space itself is free from phenomenal appearances, devoid of conceptions, and without change, its defining characteristic is of
a single nature everywhere. Likewise, Subhūti, you should know that the ultimate is characterized as being of a single nature
everywhere, within all phenomena whose defining characteristics are distinct from one another.”

Then, at that moment, the Blessed One spoke these verses:

“As proclaimed by the buddhas,

This ultimate is not distinct from phenomena,

And its defining characteristic is everywhere of a single nature.

Those who imagine it to be distinct from phenomena

Are conceited and deluded.”

This was the chapter of Subhūti—the fourth chapter.

Chapter 5

Then, the bodhisattva Viśālamati asked the Blessed One, “Blessed One, when bodhisattvas who are skilled in
the secrets of mind, thought, and
cognition are called ‘skilled in the secrets of mind, thought, and cognition,’ what does it mean? When they are designated in this way, what does it refer to?”

The Blessed One answered, “Viśālamati, you are asking this for the benefit and happiness of many beings, out of
compassion for the world, and for the welfare, benefit, and happiness of all beings, including gods and humans. Your intention
is excellent when questioning the Tathāgata on this specific point. Therefore, listen, Viśālamati. I will explain to you in
which way bodhisattvas are skilled in the secrets of mind, thought, and cognition.

“Viśālamati, when such and such beings are reborn and manifest
in this saṃsāra comprised of six destinies, in any class of beings or state of birth, be it egg-born, womb-born,
moisture-born, or spontaneously generated, there is first a twofold appropriation: the appropriation of
the physical sense faculties together with their supports, and the appropriation of mental imprints producing the elaboration
of conventional expressions with regard to phenomenal appearances, names, and conceptualizations. In dependence upon this
twofold appropriation, the mind containing all the seeds matures, merges [with the embryo], grows, increases, and
expands. This twofold
appropriation occurs in the realm of form but it does not appear in the realm of the formless.

“Viśālamati, this cognition is also called ‘appropriating cognition’ because it grasps and appropriates
the body. It is also called ‘subliminal cognition,’ because it dwells and lies hidden in this body, sharing a
common destiny. It is also called ‘mind,’ because it is accumulated and developed by visual forms, sounds, smells, flavors, tangible objects, and phenomena.

“Viśālamati, taking this appropriating cognition as support and basis, the six kinds of cognition, that is, visual, auditive, olfactory, gustatory, tactile, and mental cognitions, arise. Among these, a
visual cognition arises on the basis of the eye, which is connected with a visual cognition and a visual form. Simultaneously
and in conformity with this visual cognition, a mental cognition that conceptualizes the object arises at the same time,
having the same object. [Likewise,] Viśālamati, an auditive, olfactory, gustatory, or tactile cognition arises on the basis of
a sense faculty connected to a cognition, such as the ear, nose, tongue, or body, and a sound, smell, flavor, or tangible
object. Simultaneously and in conformity with this auditive, olfactory, gustatory, or tactile cognition, a mental cognition
that conceptualizes the object arises at the same time, having the same object. If only one visual cognition arises at one
time, then only one mental cognition that conceptualizes the
object arises simultaneously, having the same object. If two, three, four, or five cognitions arise simultaneously, then also
in that case, having the same object as the group of five cognitions, only one mental cognition that conceptualizes this
object arises simultaneously.

“Viśālamati, it is like this: If the conditions for the arising of a single wave in a large stream of
water are present, then only one wave arises. If the conditions for the arising of two or many waves are present, then two or many waves
arise. However, the river [itself] neither
stops as a stream of water nor becomes exhausted. If the conditions for the arising of a single reflection in a perfectly
polished mirror are present, then only one reflection arises. If the conditions for the arising of two or many reflections are
present, then two or many reflections arise. However, the mirror neither transforms itself into the object
corresponding to the reflection nor manifests reflections by being in close contact [with the reflected objects]. Viśālamati, similarly, taking this
appropriating cognition as support and basis, as in the examples of the river and the mirror, if the conditions for the
arising of one visual cognition are present, then only one visual cognition arises. If the conditions for the simultaneous
arising of up to five cognitions are present, then up to five cognitions simultaneously arise.

“Viśālamati, taking in this way the knowledge of this doctrine as a
support and basis, bodhisattvas are skilled in the secrets of mind, thought, and cognition. Yet, when the
Tathāgata designates the bodhisattvas as skilled in the
secrets of mind, thought, and cognition, they are not designated as completely skilled merely on
account of this. Viśālamati, I call bodhisattvas ‘skilled in the ultimate’ as soon as they, by themselves and in their own experience, neither perceive the appropriation nor the
appropriating cognition but [instead perceive] in accordance with the truth; as soon as they neither perceive the subliminal
nor the subliminal cognition; neither the accumulated nor the mind; neither the eye, nor the form, nor the visual cognition; neither
the ear, nor the sound, nor the auditive cognition; neither the nose, nor the smell, nor the olfactory cognition; neither the
tongue, nor the flavor, nor the gustatory cognition; and neither the body, nor the tangible object, nor the tactile cognition.
Viśālamati, I call bodhisattvas ‘skilled in the ultimate’ as soon as they, by themselves and in their own experience, neither
perceive thought, nor phenomena, nor mental cognition but instead perceive in accordance with the truth.
Viśālamati, the Tathāgata designates as skilled in the secrets of mind, thought, and cognition the bodhisattvas
who are skilled in the ultimate. Viśālamati, for this reason, bodhisattvas are skilled in the secrets of mind,
thought, and cognition. Also, when the Tathāgata designates them as such, it is for this reason.”

Then, at that moment, the Blessed One spoke these verses:

“Profound and subtle is the appropriating cognition.

Containing all the seeds, it flows like a stream of water.

I did not teach it to the immature,

Lest they would imagine it to be a self.”

This was the chapter of Viśālamati— the fifth
chapter.

Chapter 6

Then, the bodhisattva Guṇākara asked the Blessed One, “Blessed One, when bodhisattvas who are skilled in
the defining characteristics of phenomena are called ‘skilled in the defining characteristics of phenomena,’ what does it
mean? Moreover, when the Tathāgata designates them as such, what does it refer to?”

The Blessed One replied to the bodhisattva Guṇākara, “Guṇākara, for the benefit and happiness of many
beings, out of compassion for the world, for the welfare, benefit, and happiness of all beings,
including gods and humans, you are asking this. Your intention is excellent when questioning the Tathāgata on this specific
point. Therefore, listen, Guṇākara, I will explain to you in which way bodhisattvas are skilled in the defining
characteristics of phenomena.

“Guṇākara, the defining characteristics of phenomena are three. What are these three? They are the
imaginary defining characteristic, the other-dependent defining characteristic, and the actual defining characteristic.

“Guṇākara, what is the imaginary defining characteristic [of phenomena]? It is what is nominally and
conventionally posited as the essence or the distinctive [characteristic] of phenomena, even just in order to designate
[them].

“Guṇākara, what is the other-dependent defining characteristic [of phenomena]? It is the dependent arising
of phenomena. It is like this: ‘When this is, that arises; because this arises, that arises.’ It is also from ‘[in dependence
upon ignorance as a condition,] conditioning mental factors [arise]’ up to ‘thus, the whole great mass of suffering comes to
be.’

“Guṇākara, what is the actual defining characteristic [of
phenomena]? It is their true reality, namely, the unsurpassable complete and perfect awakening that is finally attained by
bodhisattvas as they realize this [true reality] through their diligence and correct application of mind and then become
perfectly familiar with the realization of this [true reality].

“Guṇākara, it is like this: you should consider the imaginary defining characteristic to be just like the falsity of the visual aberrations [perceived] by someone suffering from the timira visual
disorder.

“Guṇākara, it is like this: you should consider the other-dependent defining characteristic to be just like the
phenomenal appearances manifesting to this very person suffering from the timira disease, such as [actually nonexistent]
hairs, flies, sesame seeds, [or patches of] blue, yellow, red, or white [in their visual field].

“Guṇākara, it is like this: you should consider the actual defining characteristic to be just like the original and
unerring visual object seen by the same person when their vision is healthy and free from the visual aberrations resulting
from the timira disease.

“Guṇākara, it is like this: when a pure crystal is in contact with something blue, it appears to be a
sapphire. Because people perceive it by mistake as a sapphire, they are deceived by it. When this pure crystal is in contact
with something red, green, or yellow, it appears to be a ruby, an emerald, or gold. Because people perceive it by mistake as a ruby, an emerald, or gold, they are
deceived by it.

“Guṇākara, it is like this: You should consider the mental imprint of conventions in terms of an imaginary
defining characteristic upon the other-dependent defining characteristic to be just like the contact of colors with a pure
crystal. Thus, you should consider the perception of an imaginary defining characteristic [superimposed] on the
other-dependent defining characteristic to be just like the mistaken perception of a sapphire, ruby, emerald, or gold
[superimposed] on the pure crystal.

Guṇākara, it is like this: You should consider the other-dependent defining characteristic to be just like this pure
crystal itself. Thus, you should consider the actual defining characteristic as the permanent and immutable lack of any
actuality or essence in the imaginary defining characteristic [superimposed] on the other-dependent defining
characteristic, just as there is permanently and
immutably no actuality or essence in the defining characteristic of a sapphire, ruby, emerald, or gold [superimposed] on a
pure crystal.

Thus, Guṇākara, bodhisattvas distinctly perceive the imaginary defining characteristic on the basis of names denoting phenomenal appearances. They distinctly perceive
the other-dependent defining characteristic on the basis of the erroneous conception [that superimposes] an imaginary defining characteristic on the other-dependent defining characteristic. They distinctly perceive the actual defining characteristic on the basis of the nonexistence of any
erroneous conception [that superimposes] an imaginary defining characteristic on the other-dependent defining
characteristic.

“Guṇākara, when bodhisattvas distinctly perceive the imaginary defining characteristic [superimposed] on
the other-dependent defining characteristic of phenomena exactly as it is, they distinctly perceive the phenomena devoid of
any defining characteristic exactly as they are. Guṇākara,
when bodhisattvas distinctly perceive the other-dependent defining characteristic exactly as it is, they distinctly perceive
the phenomena characterized by affliction exactly as they are. Guṇākara, when bodhisattvas distinctly perceive the actual
defining characteristic exactly as it is, they distinctly perceive the phenomena characterized by purification exactly as they
are. Guṇākara, when bodhisattvas distinctly perceive the phenomena devoid of a defining characteristic [superimposed] on the
other-dependent defining characteristic exactly as they are, they abandon the phenomena characterized by affliction. Once they
have abandoned the phenomena characterized by affliction, they will obtain the phenomena characterized by purification.
Guṇākara, since bodhisattvas distinctly perceive in this way the imaginary, other-dependent, and actual defining
characteristics of phenomena exactly as they are, they distinctly perceive the phenomena devoid of a defining characteristic,
those characterized by affliction, and those characterized by purification exactly as they are. Having distinctly perceived the phenomena devoid of a defining characteristic exactly as they are,
they abandon the phenomena characterized by affliction. Once they have abandoned the phenomena characterized by affliction,
they will obtain the phenomena characterized by purification. For all these reasons, bodhisattvas are skilled in the defining
characteristics of phenomena. Moreover, when the Tathāgata designates the bodhisattvas as ‘skilled in the defining
characteristics of phenomena,’ it is for these reasons.”

Then, at that moment, the Blessed One spoke these verses:

“Once the phenomena devoid of defining characteristics have been distinctly perceived,

The phenomena characterized by affliction will be abandoned.

Once the phenomena characterized by affliction have been abandoned,

The phenomena characterized by purification will be obtained.

“Careless beings, overcome by wrongdoing and indulging in laziness,

Do not realize the imperfection of conditioned phenomena.

Falling apart in the midst of fleeting phenomena,

They deserve compassion.”

This was the chapter of Guṇākara —the sixth chapter.

Chapter 7

At that time, the bodhisattva Paramārthasamudgata asked the Blessed One, “Blessed One, when I was alone
in a secluded place, I had the following thought: ‘The Blessed One also spoke in many ways of the defining characteristic
specific to the five aggregates, mentioning the defining characteristic of their arising, disintegration, abandonment, and
comprehension. In the same way, he spoke of the twelve sense domains, dependent
arising, and the four kinds of sustenance. The Blessed One also spoke in many ways of the defining characteristic of the four
noble truths, mentioning the comprehension of suffering, the abandoning of the cause of suffering, the actualization of the
cessation of suffering, and the practice of the path. The Blessed One also spoke in many ways of the defining characteristic
specific to the eighteen constituents, mentioning their varieties, manifoldness, abandonment, and comprehension. The Blessed
One also spoke in many ways of the defining characteristic specific to the four applications of mindfulness, mentioning their
adverse factors, antidotes, practice, their arising from being non-arisen, their remaining after they arose, and their
maintaining, resuming, or increasing. Similarly, he also spoke in many ways of the defining characteristic specific to the
four correct self-restraints, the four bases of supernatural powers, the five faculties, the five forces, and the seven
branches of awakening. The Blessed One also spoke in many ways
of the defining characteristic specific to the eight branches of the path, mentioning their adverse factors, antidotes, and
practices, their arising from being non-arisen and remaining after they arose, and their maintaining, resuming, or
increasing.’

“When the Blessed One further said, ‘All phenomena are without an essence, unborn, unceasing, primordially in the state of peace, and naturally in the state of nirvāṇa,’ what was
the underlying intent of the Blessed One? I would like to ask the Blessed One about this point: what was the Blessed One
thinking when he said, ‘All phenomena are without an essence, unborn, unceasing, primordially in the state of peace, and
naturally in the state of nirvāṇa’?”

The Blessed One replied to the bodhisattva Paramārthasamudgata, “Paramārthasamudgata, this
reflection of yours arose virtuously and appropriately. It is excellent indeed. You are asking this for the benefit and
happiness of many beings, out of compassion for the world, and for the welfare, benefit, and happiness of all
beings, including gods and humans. Your intention is excellent when questioning the Tathāgata on this
specific point. Therefore, listen, Paramārthasamudgata. I will explain to you what my underlying intent was when I
declared, ‘All phenomena are without an essence, unborn, unceasing, primordially in the state of peace, and naturally in the state of nirvāṇa.’

“Paramārthasamudgata, the essencelessness of all phenomena has three aspects. Having in mind essencelessness regarding defining characteristics, essencelessness regarding arising, and
essencelessness regarding the ultimate, I thus taught what is called the essencelessness of all
phenomena.

“Paramārthasamudgata, what is the essencelessness of all phenomena with regard to defining
characteristics? It is the imaginary defining characteristic [of phenomena]. Why? Because as much as this defining
characteristic is nominally and conventionally posited, it is not posited on the basis of an essence
or a distinctive [characteristic]. Therefore, it is called
the essencelessness of all phenomena with regard to defining
characteristics.

“Paramārthasamudgata, what is the essencelessness of all phenomena with regard to arising? It is the
other-dependent defining characteristic of phenomena. Why? Because this is [the defining characteristic] arising on account of
causes other [than itself] and not by itself. Therefore, it is called essencelessness with regard to
arising.

“Paramārthasamudgata, what is the essencelessness of all phenomena with regard to the ultimate?
Phenomena arising in dependence upon causes, which lack an essence on account of lacking an essence in terms of arising and
also lack an essence on account of lacking an ultimate essence. Why? Because, Paramārthasamudgata, I showed that the
referential object conducive to purification within phenomena is the ultimate, but the other-dependent defining characteristic
is not the referential object conducive to purification. Therefore, this essencelessness is called essencelessness
with regard to the ultimate.

“Moreover, Paramārthasamudgata, the actual defining characteristic of phenomena should also be referred to as
essencelessness with regard to the ultimate. Why? Because, Paramārthasamudgata, the selflessness
of phenomena is called the essencelessness of phenomena, which is the ultimate, but the ultimate is characterized by the essencelessness of all phenomena.
Therefore, it is called essencelessness with regard to the ultimate.

“Paramārthasamudgata, it is like this: consider essencelessness with regard to defining characteristics
to be exactly like a [nonexistent] sky flower; consider essencelessness with regard to arising, as well as essencelessness
with regard to the ultimate in one of its aspects, to be exactly like a magic illusion; consider essencelessness with regard to the ultimate in
its other aspect, which consists in the selflessness of phenomena and pervades everything, to be exactly like space, which
consists in the essencelessness of form and pervades everything.

“Paramārthasamudgata, with this threefold essencelessness in mind, I taught what is called
the essencelessness of all phenomena. Paramārthasamudgata, having in mind essencelessness with regard to defining characteristics, I taught, ‘All phenomena are without an essence,
unborn, unceasing, primordially in the state of peace, and naturally in the state of nirvāṇa.’ Why? Because,
Paramārthasamudgata, what lacks a specific defining characteristic is unborn. What is unborn is unceasing. What is unborn
and unceasing is primordially in the state of peace. What is primordially in the state of peace is naturally in the state of
nirvāṇa. For what is naturally in the state of nirvāṇa, there is nothing in the slightest that passes into the state of
nirvāṇa. Therefore, having in mind essencelessness with regard to defining characteristics, I
taught, ‘All phenomena are without an essence, unborn, unceasing, primordially in the state of peace, and naturally in the
state of nirvāṇa.’

“Paramārthasamudgata, having in mind essencelessness with regard to the
ultimate, which is characterized by selflessness, I taught,
‘All phenomena are without an essence, unborn, unceasing, primordially in the state of peace, and naturally in the state of
nirvāṇa.’ Why? Because essencelessness with regard to the ultimate, which is characterized by selflessness, indeed abides
permanently and immutably. As the nature of phenomena, it is unconditioned and free from all afflictions. What permanently and
immutably abides as the very nature of phenomena, being unconditioned, is unborn and unceasing due to being unconditioned.
Because it is free from all afflictions, it is primordially in the state of peace and naturally in the state of nirvāṇa. Therefore, having in mind essencelessness with regard to the ultimate, which is characterized by selflessness, I taught, ‘All phenomena
are without an essence, unborn, unceasing, primordially in the state of peace, and naturally in the state of nirvāṇa.’

“Paramārthasamudgata, I did not designate three kinds of essencelessness because those in the world of
beings consider that the imaginary essence and the other-dependent essence, as well as the actual essence,
are different by nature. Rather, I did so because they superimpose an imaginary essence on the other-dependent essence and the actual
essence and because they designate the other-dependent essence and the actual essence as the defining characteristics of an
imaginary essence. While they designate them in this way, their minds, which are saturated with
designations, become confined to such designations and predisposed toward them. On
this basis, they wrongly conceive the other-dependent
essence and the actual essence as the defining characteristics of an imaginary essence. Wrongly conceiving them in this way, with their wrong conception of the other-dependent
essence as the defining characteristic of an imaginary essence acting as a cause and condition, they will give rise in the
future to an other-dependent essence. As a result of this, they will be afflicted by the afflictions of defilements, karma, and
birth. Because they will not pass beyond saṃsāra, they will transmigrate and wander among hell beings, animals,
hungry ghosts, gods, demigods, and humans for a very long time.

“Among these beings, Paramārthasamudgata, some do not produce roots of virtue from the
very beginning. They do not clear obstructions or bring their mental continuums to maturity. Their confidence in my teaching
is limited and they have not accomplished the accumulations of merit and gnosis. I impart to those beings the
teaching on essencelessness with regard to arising. Once they have heard this teaching, they understand that conditioned
phenomena arising in dependence on causes are of an impermanent, unstable, and unreliable nature. They develop aversion and
repulsion towards conditioned phenomena. Once they have done this, they turn away from wrongdoing. Not committing any
wrongdoing, they establish themselves in virtue. With this as a cause, they produce the roots of virtue that were yet to be
produced. They clear obstructions that were yet to be cleared. They bring their mental continuums, which were not yet mature,
to maturity. As a result, their confidence in my teaching becomes vast, and they will accomplish the accumulations of merit
and gnosis.

“Although such beings have produced in this way roots of virtue up to the accomplishment of
the accumulation of merit and gnosis, they do not understand
essencelessness with regard to arising just as it is, as the essencelessness with regard to defining characteristics and the
essencelessness with regard to the ultimate in its two aspects. For this reason, they will not be completely repulsed by all
conditioned phenomena, completely free from desire, or completely liberated. They will not be completely liberated from all
the afflictions of defilements, karma, and birth. It is therefore for them that the Tathāgata imparts the teaching on the
essencelessness with regard to defining characteristics and the essencelessness with regard to the ultimate. He does so in
order to make them feel repulsion towards all conditioned phenomena, as well as to free them from desire, to completely
liberate them, and to take them perfectly beyond the afflictions
of defilements, karma, and birth.

“Once they have heard this teaching, they do not wrongly conceive the other-dependent essence as the
defining characteristic of an imaginary essence. As a result, they accept the essencelessness with regard to arising as the
essencelessness with regard to defining characteristics and the essencelessness with regard to the ultimate in its two
aspects. They discern and understand it exactly as it is. It is like this: Their minds, which are no longer saturated with designations, are not confined to these designations or
predisposed toward them. As a result, by attaining the powers of wisdom in this life and perfectly cutting off the continuity
[of the aggregates] into a future existence, they will put an end to the other-dependent defining characteristic. On this
basis, they will be completely repulsed by all conditioned phenomena, completely free from desire, and completely liberated.
They will be completely liberated from all the afflictions
of defilements, karma, and birth.

“Moreover, Paramārthasamudgata, even those belonging to the lineage of the hearers’ vehicle attain
nirvāṇa, the unsurpassable happiness, through this very path and journey, as do those belonging to
the lineage of the solitary realizers’ vehicle and the lineage of the tathāgatas. This is why it is the single path of
purification for hearers, solitary realizers, and bodhisattvas. Since there is only a single purification, there is no other.
Therefore, with this in mind, I taught the Single Vehicle. Yet, it is not the case that those in the world of
beings are not of various types corresponding to their capacities, be they weak, average, or sharp in
accordance with their nature.

“Paramārthasamudgata, even if they were to exert themselves as all buddhas did, individuals belonging to the hearers’
lineage with the state of peace as their sole journey could not reach the heart of awakening and attain the unsurpassable,
complete and perfect awakening. Why? Because, having limited compassion and a great fear of suffering, they belong to a
lineage that is by nature inferior. Thus, having limited compassion, they avoid striving for beings’ welfare. Being afraid of
suffering, they stay clear from the conditioning process of the mental factors. However, I did not teach that avoiding striving for
beings’ welfare and staying clear from the conditioning process of the mental factors was the unsurpassable, complete and
perfect awakening. Therefore, these individuals are called those who have the state of peace as their sole
journey.

“I taught that hearers who evolve toward awakening belong to the category of bodhisattvas because, liberated from the obscuration of defilements and
inspired by the tathāgatas, they liberate their minds from the obscuration of cognitive objects. It is [only] because they
first liberated themselves from the obscuration of defilements for their own sake that the Tathāgata designated them as
the lineage of hearers.

“Thus, Paramārthasamudgata, there are beings with various degrees of confidence in my
Dharma and my Vinaya, which are well proclaimed, well imparted, pure in their intention, and well communicated. In this
teaching, Paramārthasamudgata, the Tathāgata, having in mind the three kinds of essencelessness,
teaches through a discourse of provisional meaning: ‘All phenomena are without an essence, unborn, unceasing, primordially in
the state of peace, and naturally in the state of nirvāṇa.’

“Among such beings, Paramārthasamudgata, some have produced roots of virtue, purified
their obscurations, and brought their mental continuum to maturity. They have much confidence in my teaching and have
accomplished the accumulations of merit and gnosis. Once they have heard my teaching, they understand my explanations in
accordance with my underlying intent exactly as it is. Moreover, they recognize that this teaching is the truth.
Through their wisdom, they realize its meaning exactly as it is. By also engaging in the practice of this realization, they
will very quickly attain the ultimate state. They will develop faith in these teachings, and think, ‘Amazing! The Blessed One
is completely and perfectly awakened. Through him, one becomes perfectly awakened with respect to all phenomena.’

“Among such beings, some have not produced roots of virtue, purified their obscurations, and
brought their mental continuums to maturity. Their confidence in my teaching is limited and they have not accomplished the accumulations of merit and gnosis. They are honest and
sincere. Unable to evaluate and refute [others’ views], they do not consider their own as supreme.
Once they have heard my teaching, although they do not understand my explanations in accordance with my underlying intent
exactly as it is, they still develop confidence and faith in these teachings: ‘The Tathāgata’s discourse is profound and has
the appearance of profundity. [Because] emptiness is the topic of this discourse, it is difficult to perceive and difficult to
understand. Being beyond judgment, it does not belong to the domain of speculation. It can [only] be known by intelligent
scholars well versed in the subtle.’ They think, ‘We do not understand the
meaning of this sūtra and these teachings that were taught by the Blessed One. Profound is the awakening of the Buddha and the
nature of phenomena. Only the Tathāgata understands them. We, however, do not. The Dharma taught by the tathāgatas arises
according to the various inclinations of beings. Their gnosis and perception are infinite, whereas ours are merely like the [shallow] hoofprints left by a cow.’ Filled with
devotion for these discourses, they also write them down. Having written them down, they also keep them in mind, read them,
propagate them, venerate them, expound them, recite them, and chant them aloud. However, because they do not understand these
profound teachings in accordance with my underlying intent, they are unable to engage themselves in the various aspects of
practice. As a consequence of this, they will further develop their accumulation of merit and gnosis, and those whose mental
continuums are still immature will bring them to maturity.

“Other beings have not perfectly completed these stages up to the great accumulation of
merit and gnosis. They are dishonest and insincere. Capable of
evaluating and refuting [others’ views], they consider their own as supreme. Once they have heard my teaching, they do not
understand my profound explanations in accordance with my underlying intent exactly as it is. Although they have confidence in
this teaching, they wrongly conceive it according to its literal meaning: ‘All phenomena are only without
an essence, only unborn, only unceasing, only primordially in
the state of peace, and only naturally in the state of nirvāṇa.’ As a consequence of this, they acquire
the view that all phenomena are inexistent and the view that they are without defining characteristics. Then, once they have
acquired these views, they negate all phenomena by [negating] all defining characteristics, thereby negating the imaginary
defining characteristic as well as the other-dependent and actual defining characteristics. Why is it said that they negate
all three defining characteristics? Because, Paramārthasamudgata, if the other-dependent and actual defining
characteristics are accepted, then the imaginary defining characteristic also will be distinctly perceived. Now, those who
consider the other-dependent and actual defining characteristics as inexistent have already negated the imaginary defining
characteristic. This is why they are called those who negate all three defining characteristics. They
consider my teaching to be the truth while considering some nonsense to be its meaning. Those who consider my teaching to be
the truth while considering some nonsense to be its meaning cling to my teaching as the truth while at the same time clinging
to some nonsense as its meaning. Since they have confidence in my teaching, they will progress by developing virtuous
qualities. However, because they wrongly conceive some nonsense to be the meaning of my teaching, they will stray from wisdom.
Straying from wisdom, they will stray from the vast and
immeasurable virtuous qualities.

“Others hear from those beings that my teaching is the truth while some nonsense is its meaning. Then,
delighted by this view, they accept that my teaching is the truth and some nonsense is its meaning. Thus, they wrongly
conceive my teaching as the truth with some nonsense as its meaning. As a consequence of this, you should know that they will
likewise stray from virtuous qualities.

“Others who take no delight in this view are overcome by fear and anxiety when they hear that all
phenomena are without an essence, unborn, unceasing, primordially in the state of peace, and naturally in the state of
nirvāṇa. They then say, ‘These are not the words of the Buddha but the words of Māra!’ Thinking in this way, they reject this
discourse, disparage it, denigrate it, and criticize it. As a consequence of this, they will obtain the great misfortune as
well as the great karmic obscuration [of rejecting the truth]. This is precisely why I said, ‘Those
who mislead the multitude of beings into obtaining the great karmic obscuration, who consider all defining characteristics as
inexistent and teach some nonsense as the meaning of my teaching, are burdened with great karmic obscuration [of rejecting the
truth].

“Paramārthasamudgata, among such beings, some have not produced roots of virtue, purified their
obscurations, and brought their mental continuum to maturity. Their confidence in my teaching is limited, and they have not
accomplished the accumulations of merit and gnosis. They are dishonest and insincere. Although they are unable to evaluate and
refute [others’ views], they consider their own as supreme. When they hear my teaching, they neither understand my
explanations in accordance with my underlying intent exactly as it is, nor do they develop confidence in this teaching. They
accept that my teaching is not the truth and its meaning is some nonsense. They say, ‘These are not the words of the Buddha
but the words of Māra!’ Thinking in this way, they reject
this discourse, disparage it, denigrate it, criticize it, and distort [its meaning]. In many ways, they apply themselves to
discarding, undermining, and subverting this discourse, considering as enemies those who are devoted to it. From the very
beginning, they are affected by the karmic obscuration [of rejecting the truth]. As a consequence of this, they also cause
[others] to be obscured by this karmic obscuration. Although it is easy to determine the beginning of this karmic obscuration,
it is difficult to know how many myriad eons it will last.

“Thus, Paramārthasamudgata, those are the various degrees of confidence in my Dharma and my Vinaya, which are well proclaimed, well imparted, pure in their intention,
and well communicated.”

Then, at that moment, the Blessed One spoke these verses:

“All phenomena are without an essence, unborn,

Unceasing, primordially in the state of peace,

And naturally in the state of nirvāṇa.

What wise person would say this without an underlying intent?

“I have spoken of essencelessness

With regard to defining characteristics, arising, and the ultimate.

No wise person who understands my underlying intent

Will travel the path leading to corruption.

“There is only one path of purification for all beings,

As there is only one purification, not two.

This is why, even if there are various lineages of beings,

I proclaimed the Single Vehicle.

“In the world of beings, innumerable are

The solitary beings who attain nirvāṇa,

While rare are those who have attained nirvāṇa

And possess the energy and compassion to not turn away from beings.

“Subtle, inconceivable, and undifferentiated

Is the uncontaminated domain of those who are liberated.

Nondual and inexpressible, blissful and immutable,

It is the accomplishment of all [intentions], the release from all suffering and defilements.”

Then, the bodhisattva Paramārthasamudgata said to the Blessed One, “Blessed One, the speech expounding
the underlying intent of the buddhas is subtle, extremely subtle, profound, extremely profound, difficult to understand, and
extremely difficult to understand. How marvelous, how wonderful it is!

“This is how I understand the meaning of the words spoken by the Blessed One: The phenomenal appearance of
conditioned phenomena, namely, the basis of the imaginary defining characteristic, the object of conceptualization, is nominally
and conventionally posited as an essential characteristic or a distinctive characteristic, for example as the aggregate of form, its arising, its
cessation, its abandonment, or the comprehension of this aggregate. What is posited in this way is the imaginary defining
characteristic. For this reason, Blessed One, you referred to essencelessness with regard to the defining characteristics of
phenomena. The phenomenal appearance of conditioned phenomena, namely, the basis of the imaginary defining characteristic, the
object of conceptualization, is the other-dependent defining characteristic. For this reason, Blessed One, you referred to
essencelessness with regard to both the arising of phenomena and the ultimate in one of its aspects.

“This is how I understand the meaning of the words spoken by the Blessed One: this very phenomenal appearance of
conditioned phenomena, namely, the basis of the imaginary defining characteristic, the object of conceptualization, is devoid
of any actuality or essence as that which has an imaginary defining characteristic.
On account of this, this essencelessness or selflessness of
phenomena, true reality, the referential object conducive to purification, is the actual defining characteristic. For this
reason, Blessed One, you referred to the essencelessness of phenomena with regard to the ultimate in its other aspect.

“One should proceed in exactly the same way with the remaining aggregates as well as with each of the twelve sense
domains, the twelve factors of conditioned existence, the four kinds of sustenance, and the six and eighteen constituents.

“This is how I understand the meaning of the words spoken by the Blessed One: The phenomenal appearance
of conditioned phenomena, namely, the basis of the imaginary defining characteristic, the object of conceptualization, is
nominally and conventionally posited as an essential characteristic or a distinctive characteristic, for example as the noble
truth of suffering or the comprehension of suffering. For this reason, Blessed One, you referred to essencelessness with
regard to the defining characteristics of phenomena. The phenomenal appearance of conditioned phenomena, namely, the basis of
the imaginary defining characteristic, the object of conceptualization, is the other-dependent defining characteristic. For
this reason, Blessed One, you referred to essencelessness with regard to both the arising of phenomena and the ultimate in one
of its aspects.

“This is how I understand the meaning of the words spoken by the Blessed One: This very phenomenal appearance of
conditioned phenomena, namely, the basis of the imaginary defining characteristic, the object of conceptualization, is devoid
of any actuality or essence as that which has an imaginary defining characteristic.
On account of this, this essencelessness or selflessness of
phenomena, true reality, the referential object conducive to purification, is the actual defining characteristic. For this
reason, Blessed One, you referred to the essencelessness of phenomena with regard to the ultimate in its other aspect.

“As with the noble truth of suffering, one should proceed in exactly the same way with the other truths. As with the
truths, so one should proceed in exactly the same way with each of the applications of mindfulness, the self-restraints, the
bases of supernatural powers, the faculties, the forces, the branches of awakening, and the branches
of the path.

“This is how I understand the meaning of the words spoken by the Blessed One: The phenomenal appearance
of conditioned phenomena, namely, the basis of the imaginary defining characteristic, the object of conceptualization, is
nominally and conventionally posited as an essential characteristic or a distinctive characteristic, for example as correct
concentration, its adverse factors and antidotes, its practice, its arising from being non-arisen,
its remaining after it arose, and its maintaining, resuming, increasing, or expanding. For this reason, Blessed One, you
referred to essencelessness with regard to the defining characteristics of phenomena. The phenomenal appearance of conditioned
phenomena, namely, the basis of the imaginary defining characteristic, the object of conceptualization, is the other-dependent
defining characteristic. For this reason, Blessed One, you referred to essencelessness with regard to both the arising of
phenomena and the ultimate in one of its aspects.

“This is how I understand the meaning of the words
spoken by the Blessed One: This very phenomenal appearance of conditioned phenomena, namely, the basis of the imaginary
defining characteristic, the object of conceptualization, is devoid of any actuality or essence as that which has an imaginary
defining characteristic. On account of this, this essencelessness or selflessness of phenomena, true reality, the referential
object conducive to purification, is the actual defining characteristic. For this reason, Blessed One, you referred to the
essencelessness of phenomena with regard to the ultimate in its other aspect.

“Blessed One, thus it is said, for example, that dried ginger should be added to all medicinal powders
and elixirs. Likewise, this teaching of definitive meaning expounded by the Blessed One in reference to the statement, ‘All phenomena are without
an essence, unborn, unceasing, primordially in the state of peace, and naturally in the state of nirvāṇa,’ should also be added to all the discourses of
provisional meaning.

“Blessed One, it is like this: for example, the canvas for a painting, whether blue, yellow, red, or white, is
identical for all painted figures and thus perfectly clarifies their contours. Likewise, this teaching of definitive meaning
expounded by the Blessed One in reference to the statement, ‘All phenomena are without an essence, unborn, unceasing,
primordially in the state of peace, and naturally in the state of nirvāṇa,’ is identical in all discourses of provisional
meaning and thus perfectly clarifies their interpretable intent.

“Blessed One, it is like this: for example, adding clarified butter to all sorts of stews, meat dishes, and porridge
is delicious. Likewise, it is delightful to add to all discourses of provisional meaning this teaching of definitive meaning
expounded by the Blessed One in reference to the statement, ‘All phenomena are without an essence, unborn, unceasing,
primordially in the state of peace, and naturally in the state of nirvāṇa.’

“Blessed One, it is like this: for example, space is identical everywhere and, [being empty and free from all
obstruction,] does not hinder any endeavor. Likewise, this teaching of definitive meaning expounded by the Blessed One in
reference to the statement, ‘All phenomena are without an essence, unborn, unceasing, primordially in the state of peace, and
naturally in the state of nirvāṇa,’ is identical in all discourses of provisional meaning and does not hinder any endeavor in
the course of the hearers’, solitary realizers’, or bodhisattvas’ vehicle.”

Following these words, the Blessed One complimented the bodhisattva Paramārthasamudgata: “Excellent,
Paramārthasamudgata, this is excellent! You have understood my explanation in accordance with the Tathāgata’s underlying
intent. Your examples of the dried ginger, painting, clarified butter, and space perfectly illustrated its point.
Paramārthasamudgata, so it is, and not otherwise. Therefore, keep in
mind
this teaching in this way.”

Then, the bodhisattva Paramārthasamudgata spoke again to the Blessed One: “In the deer park of
Ṛṣivadana in Vārāṇasī, the Blessed One first set in motion the wonderful wheel of Dharma by teaching the four noble truths to
those who were engaged in the hearers’ vehicle. Not a single god or human in the world had previously ever turned such a wheel
of Dharma. However, this turning of the Dharma wheel by the Blessed One was surpassable and adapted to the circumstances.
Being of provisional meaning,
it became a topic of dispute. Then, for those who were engaged in the Great Vehicle, you turned the second, even more wonderful, wheel of Dharma in the form of a teaching on
emptiness: ‘All phenomena are without an essence, unborn, unceasing, primordially in the state of peace, and naturally in the
state of nirvāṇa.’ However, this turning of the Dharma wheel by the Blessed One was surpassable and adapted to the
circumstances. Being of provisional meaning, it became a topic of dispute. Then, for those who were engaged in all
vehicles, you turned the third wonderful Dharma wheel of excellent discernment in reference to the statement, ‘All
phenomena are without an essence, unborn, unceasing, primordially in the state of peace, and by nature in the state of
nirvāṇa.’ This turning of the Dharma wheel by
the Blessed One was unsurpassable and not limited to the circumstances. Being of definitive meaning, it did not become a topic
of dispute.

“Blessed One, when sons or daughters of noble family have heard the teaching of definitive meaning taught
by the Blessed One in reference to the statement, ‘All phenomena are without an essence, unborn, unceasing, primordially in
the state of peace, and naturally in the state of nirvāṇa,’ they develop devotion for this teaching and commission its
transcription into writing. Once it has been put into writing, they keep it in mind, read it, venerate it, propagate it,
expound it, chant it aloud, contemplate it, and apply it in their practice. As they do so, how much merit will they
produce?”

The Blessed One answered, “Paramārthasamudgata, these sons and daughters of noble family will produce
immeasurable and incalculable merit. Although it is difficult
to illustrate this with examples, I will briefly explain it to you. Paramārthasamudgata, it is like this: Compared to the
amount of earth, the amount of dirt at the tip of a fingernail does not come close to a hundredth, a thousandth, a one hundred
thousandth of it, or anything implying calculation, partition, numeration, analogy, or comparison. Compared to the amount of
water contained in the four great oceans, the amount of water contained in the hoofprint of an ox does not come close to a
hundredth, a thousandth, a one hundred thousandth of it, or anything implying calculation, partition, numeration, analogy, or
comparison. Likewise, Paramārthasamudgata, compared to the amount of merit accumulated by developing confidence in my
teaching of definitive meaning up to applying it in one’s practice, the amount of merit accumulated by developing confidence
in my teaching of provisional meaning … up to applying it in one’s practice does not come close to a hundredth, a thousandth,
a one hundred thousandth of it, or anything implying calculation, partition, numeration, analogy, or comparison.”

The bodhisattva Paramārthasamudgata inquired, “Blessed One, what is the name of this teaching as a
Dharma discourse that unravels the Tathāgata’s intent? How should
I keep it in mind?”

The Blessed One answered: “Paramārthasamudgata, this is a teaching of definitive meaning on the ultimate.
Therefore, keep it in mind as The Teaching of Definitive Meaning on the
Ultimate.”

As the Blessed One expounded this teaching of definitive meaning on the ultimate, six hundred thousand beings
produced the mind directed at the unsurpassable, complete and perfect awakening; three hundred thousand hearers purified the Dharma eye from impurities and
contaminations; one hundred and fifty hearers who were without attachment liberated their minds from all outflows; and
seventy-five thousand bodhisattvas attained the acceptance that phenomena are non-arisen.

This was the chapter of the bodhisattva Paramārthasamudgata—the seventh chapter.

Chapter 8

Then, the bodhisattva Maitreya asked a question to the Blessed One, “Blessed One, when bodhisattvas
practice mental stillness and insight in the Great Vehicle, what is their support and basis?”

The Blessed One answered, “Maitreya, their support and basis are the discourses teaching Dharma and the constant
aspiration to attain the unsurpassable, complete and perfect awakening.

“The Blessed One taught that four things
are the referential objects of mental stillness and insight: the image with conceptualization; the image without
conceptualization; the point where phenomena end; and the accomplishment of the goal.”

“Blessed One, how many referential objects of mental stillness are there?”

“There is [only] one, namely, the image without conceptualization.”

“How many are the referential objects of insight?”

“There is only one, namely, the image with conceptualization.”

“How many are the referential objects of both combined?”

“There are two, namely, the point where phenomena end and the accomplishment of the goal.”

“Blessed One, once bodhisattvas have taken as a support and basis these four things that are the
referential objects of mental stillness and insight, how do they dedicate themselves to mental stillness? How do they become
skilled in the practice of insight?”

“Maitreya, I have given to the bodhisattvas discourses teaching Dharma in the following twelve collections of
teachings: sūtras, discourses in prose and verse, prophecies, poetic discourses, aphorisms, discourses for specific
beings, narratives, parables, discourses on previous lives, extensive discourses, teachings on miracles, and
instructions. Once bodhisattvas have properly heard these
explanations, once they have memorized them well, recited them, examined them, and understood them by means of discernment,
they remain alone in seclusion and settle themselves in a state of inner absorption. Then, they direct their attention in that
⁽¹⁾ they direct their attention toward the teachings they have properly contemplated and ⁽²⁾ continuously direct their attention inwardly toward the mind that is directing attention. As they
repeatedly engage themselves in this way, their bodies and minds become flexible. The occurrence of this physical and mental
flexibility is what is called mental stillness. This is how bodhisattvas dedicate themselves to mental
stillness.

“Once they have obtained this physical and mental
flexibility, they settle in this very state and abandon some aspects of mind [corresponding to mental stillness]. Then, they apply themselves to analyzing
the image that is the object of their concentration according to the teachings they have properly contemplated.
Differentiating, discerning, considering, and examining in this way the cognitive aspects of the image that is
the object of their concentration, accepting and wishing to do so, and distinguishing, scrutinizing, and investigating [this
discerning mind in the same way] is what is called [the practice of] insight. This is how bodhisattvas
are skilled in insight.”

“Blessed One, when bodhisattvas direct their attention inwardly toward the mind that takes the mind as its
referential object but have not yet attained physical and mental flexibility, what do you call their practice of directing
attention?”

“Maitreya, this is not yet mental stillness. So you should refer to it as a practice aspiring to mental
stillness.”

“Blessed One, when bodhisattvas direct their attention toward the image that is the object of their concentration
according to the teachings they have properly contemplated, but they have not yet attained physical and mental flexibility,
what do you call their practice of directing attention?”

“Maitreya, this is not yet insight. So you should refer to it as a practice aspiring to insight.”

“Blessed One, should we refer to the path of mental stillness and the path of insight as being distinct or
indistinct from one another?”

“Maitreya, we should refer to them as neither distinct nor indistinct. Why are they not distinct? Because mental
stillness takes mind, which is the referential object of insight, as its object. Why are they not indistinct? Because insight
takes a conceptual image as its referential object.”

“Blessed One, what image do bodhisattvas focus on as their object of concentration? Should we consider it
as distinct from mind or not?”

“Maitreya, we must consider that it is not distinct from mind. Why? Because this image is merely a representation.
Maitreya, I have explained that cognition is constituted by the mere
representation that is the referential object [of this cognition].”

“Blessed One, if this image that is the object of concentration is not distinct from the mind, how does this very
mind investigate itself?”

“Maitreya, [ultimately] no phenomenon whatsoever investigates any phenomenon at all. However, the mind that arises as
[if it were conscious of an object] appears as [if it were investigating itself]. Maitreya, it is like this: based on a form
[in front of a mirror], you see that same form on the clear surface of this mirror and realize that you are seeing a
reflection, an image
in which this reflection and the form [it is based on] appear to be distinct objects. Likewise, the mind arising as [if it
were conscious of an object] and what is called its image, the object of concentration, appear as if they were distinct
objects.”

“Blessed One, should we say that mental images naturally
present to beings, such as the appearance of
material form and so forth, are also not distinct from
mind?”

“Maitreya, we should say that they are not distinct. However, foolish beings with erroneous ideas do not understand
just as it is that [mental] images are mere representations. As a consequence, their minds are mistaken.”

“Blessed One, when do the bodhisattvas practice only insight?”

“Whenever they direct their attention toward mental appearances without interruption.”

“When do the bodhisattvas practice only mental stillness?”

“Whenever they direct their attention toward the unimpeded mind without interruption.”

“When do they combine both insight and mental stillness and unite them evenly?”

“Whenever they direct their attention toward the one-pointedness of mind.”

“Blessed One, what is a mental appearance?”

“Maitreya, this is the referential object of insight, the conceptual image that is the object of concentration.”

“What is the unimpeded mind?”

“Maitreya, it is the referential object of mental stillness, the mind that takes the image as an object.”

“What is one-pointedness of mind?”

“[One-pointedness of mind is] realizing in regard to the image that is the object of concentration, ‘This is merely a
representation,’ and, on realizing that, directing one’s attention toward true reality.”

“Blessed One, how many kinds of insight are there?”

“Maitreya, there are three: insight arising from phenomenal appearance, insight arising from inquiry, and insight
arising from awakening.”

“What is insight arising from phenomenal appearance?”

“It is the insight in which attention is directed exclusively toward a conceptual image, the object of
concentration.”

“What is insight arising from inquiry?”

“It is the insight in which attention is directed in order to perfectly understand whatever phenomena were not yet
understood by means of wisdom.”

“What is insight arising from awakening?”

“It is the insight in which attention is directed on whatever phenomena one perfectly understood by means of wisdom
in order to attain the happiness of liberation.”

“How many kinds of mental stillness are there?”

“There are three kinds of mental stillness corresponding to the unimpeded mind. Maitreya, it is also said to be of
eight kinds: the first, second, third, and fourth meditative absorptions, the domain of the infinity of space, the domain of
infinite cognition, the domain of nothingness, and the domain of neither conception nor lack of conception. It is also of four
kinds: immeasurable loving-kindness, immeasurable compassion, immeasurable joy, and immeasurable equanimity.”

“Blessed One, you have mentioned ‘mental stillness and insight that are established in Dharma’ and
‘mental stillness and insight that are not established in Dharma.’ What do these terms mean?”

“Maitreya, the mental stillness and insight that are established in Dharma are the mental stillness and insight whose
object is in agreement with phenomenal appearance as presented in the teachings that bodhisattvas have understood and
contemplated.

“You should know that the mental stillness and insight that are not established in Dharma are the mental stillness
and insight whose object, being unrelated to the teachings that bodhisattvas have understood and contemplated, is based on
other instructions or precepts, such as taking as referential objects putrefying or festering corpses as well as any other
similar objects, the impermanence of all conditioned phenomena, the suffering [inherent to all conditioned phenomena], the
selflessness of all phenomena, and nirvāṇa as the state of peace.

“Maitreya, regarding this, I consider those bodhisattvas who follow the teaching based on the mental stillness and
insight established in Dharma to possess sharp faculties. As for those faithfully following the teaching based on the mental
stillness and insight that are not established in Dharma, I consider them to possess inferior faculties.”

“Blessed One, you also mentioned ‘the mental stillness and insight with a specific teaching as a referential object’ and ‘the mental stillness and insight
with a universal teaching as a referential object.’ What do these terms mean?”

“Maitreya, suppose that bodhisattvas practice the mental stillness and insight that take as a referential object an
individual teaching, such as a specific discourse, among all the teachings they have understood and contemplated. This is
called mental stillness and insight with a specific teaching as a referential object.

Now, suppose that bodhisattvas unify, condense, subsume, or gather teachings from various discourses into a single
one, thinking that all these teachings converge toward true reality, lean toward true reality, and tend toward true reality;
converge toward awakening, lean toward awakening, and tend toward awakening; converge toward nirvāṇa, lean toward nirvāṇa, and
tend toward nirvāṇa; and converge toward a shift in one’s basis of existence, lean toward a shift in one’s basis of existence, and
tend toward a shift in one’s basis of existence. Thinking that all these teachings actually refer to the immeasurable and
infinite virtuous truth,
they direct their attention [toward their referential object]. This is [called] mental stillness and insight with a
universal teaching as a referential object.”

“Blessed One, you also mentioned mental stillness and insight ‘with a fairly universal teaching as a
referential object,’ ‘with a highly universal teaching as a referential object,’ and ‘with an infinitely universal teaching as
a referential object.’ What do these terms mean?”

“Maitreya, suppose the bodhisattvas gather together [the meaning of] each of the twelve collections of my teaching,
from the sūtras up to the extensive discourses, the teachings on miracles, and the instructions. Having done so, they direct their attention toward this referential object.
This should be known as the mental stillness and insight with a fairly universal teaching as a referential
object.

When the bodhisattvas gather together all the teachings or discourses they have understood and
contemplated and then direct their attention onto this referential object, this should be known as the mental
stillness and insight with a highly universal teaching as a referential object.

“When the bodhisattvas gather together the teachings imparted by the tathāgatas that refer to the infinite
truth, the infinite words and letters expressing it, and the ever-increasing infinite wisdom and
eloquence of the tathāgatas and then direct their attention toward this referential object, this should be known as
the mental stillness and insight with an infinitely universal teaching as a referential object.”

“Blessed One, how do bodhisattvas obtain mental stillness and insight with a universal teaching as a
referential object?”

“Maitreya, you should know that they obtain them through five causes: ⁽¹⁾ At the time of directing their attention,
they destroy all supports of corruption in every moment. ⁽²⁾ After giving up the variety of conditioned phenomena, they
rejoice in the joy of Dharma. ⁽³⁾ They perfectly know the immeasurable and unceasing brilliance of Dharma in the ten
directions. ⁽⁴⁾ They bring together, without conceptualizing them, the phenomenal appearances that are imbued with the
accomplishment of the goal and in harmony with the element conducive to purification. ⁽⁵⁾ In order to attain, perfect, and
accomplish the truth body, they seize the most supreme and auspicious cause.”

“Blessed One, how should we know at which point the bodhisattvas cognize and obtain the mental stillness
and the insight that have a universal teaching as a referential object?”

“Maitreya, you should know that they cognize them on the first bodhisattva stage, Utmost Joy, and obtain them on the
third stage, Illuminating. Maitreya, in spite of this, even beginners among bodhisattvas should not abstain from training in
them and directing their attention toward their referential object.”

“Blessed One, in what way do mental stillness and insight become a concentration associated with mental
engagement and investigation?
In what way do they become a concentration not with mental
engagement but with investigation only? In what way do they become a concentration without either mental engagement or
investigation?”

“Maitreya, when mental stillness and insight attend to experiences of the manifest and coarse phenomenal
appearances mentioned in the teachings the bodhisattvas have understood, investigated, and examined, this is the concentration
associated with mental engagement and investigation.

“When mental stillness and insight do not consist in attending the experiences corresponding to the manifest and
coarse phenomenal appearances mentioned in their teachings but consist in being merely mindful of appearances, namely, in
attending the experience of subtle phenomenal appearances, this is a concentration not with mental
engagement but with investigation only.

“When mental stillness and insight consist in practicing by directing one’s attention toward the experience of the
effortless Dharma with regard to each and every phenomenal appearance mentioned in these teachings, this is a concentration
without either mental engagement or investigation.

“Moreover, Maitreya, mental stillness and insight arising from inquiry consist in a concentration associated with
mental engagement and investigation. The mental stillness and insight arising from awakening is a concentration not with
mental engagement but with investigation only. The mental stillness and insight taking a universal teaching as
its referential object consist in a concentration without either mental engagement or investigation.”

“Blessed One, what is the cause of mental stillness? What is the cause of setting the mind?
What is the cause of equanimity?”

“Maitreya, when one feels excited or feels one might become excited, one directs one’s attention toward phenomena
that induce sorrow and the unimpeded mind. This is what is called the cause of mental
stillness.

“Maitreya, when one feels drowsy or feels one might become drowsy, one directs one’s attention toward phenomena that
induce joy and mental appearance. This is what is called the cause of
setting the mind.

“Maitreya, whether one is devoted to mental stillness or insight only, or practices them in union, when one applies one’s mind without being affected by these
two secondary defilements, [namely agitation and drowsiness,] one directs one’s attention spontaneously. This is what
is called the cause of equanimity.”

“Blessed One, the bodhisattvas who practice mental stillness and insight possess the analytical knowledge
of designations as well as the analytical knowledge of the objects of designation. In what way do they possess these analytical knowledges?”

“Maitreya, the analytical knowledge of designations comprises five points: names, phrases, letters, their individual
apprehension, and their collective apprehension. What is a name? It is that which superimposes a so-called essential or
distinctive characteristic on the phenomena conducive to affliction and purification for the sake of
communication. What is a phrase? It is that which is based on a collection of those very names taken as its
support and basis in order to designate objects of affliction and purification. What are letters? They are phonemes acting as
the basis for both names and phrases. What is the analytical knowledge that apprehends them individually? It is the analytical
knowledge resulting from directing one’s attention toward a specific referential object. What is the analytical knowledge that
apprehends them collectively? It is the analytical knowledge resulting from directing one’s attention toward a general
referential object. When all these five points are put together, this should be known as the analytical knowledge of
designations. This is how bodhisattvas possess the analytical knowledge of designations.

“Maitreya, the analytical knowledge of the objects of designation comprises ten points: the diversity of
things and the nature of things; the apprehending subject
and the apprehended object; the abodes and objects of enjoyment; wrong view and correct view; and the object conducive to
affliction and the object conducive to purification.

1. “Maitreya, all the various divisions of phenomena conducive to affliction and purification
according to their aspects represent the diversity of things, namely, the fivefold enumeration of the aggregates, the sixfold
enumeration of the internal sense domains, the sixfold enumeration of the external sense domains, and so on.

2. “Maitreya, the true reality of all these very phenomena conducive to affliction and purification is the nature of
things itself. It has seven aspects: (i) the true reality of arising in the sense that all conditioned phenomena are without beginning and
end; (ii) the true reality of defining characteristics in the sense that everything, person or phenomenon, is without a self;
(iii) the true reality of representations in the sense that all conditioned phenomena are mere representations; (iv) the true reality of existence in the
sense of the truth of suffering that I have taught; (v) the true reality of mistaken action in the sense of the
truth of the origin of suffering that I have taught; (vi) the true reality of purification in the sense of the truth of
cessation [of suffering] that I have taught; (vii) the true reality of correct action in the sense of the truth of the path
that I have taught.

“Maitreya, on account of the true reality of arising, defining characteristics, and existence, all
beings are similar and equal. Maitreya, on account of the true reality of defining characteristics and
representations, all phenomena are similar and equal. Maitreya, on account of the true reality of purification, the awakening
of the hearers, the awakening of the solitary realizers, and the unsurpassable, complete and perfect awakening are similar and
equal. Maitreya, on account of the true reality of correct action, similar and equal too are the wisdoms encompassed by the
mental stillness and insight that take as a referential object a universal teaching that has been heard, contemplated, and
practiced.

3. “Maitreya, the apprehending subject consists in the phenomena of the five physical sense domains, mind,
thought, cognition, and mental states.

4. “Maitreya, the apprehended object consists in the six external sense domains. In addition, Maitreya, apprehending
subjects are also apprehended objects.

5. “Maitreya, the objects corresponding to abodes are the worlds of beings, which manifest wherever
there are beings: as one, one hundred, one thousand, or one hundred thousand villages; as one, one hundred, one thousand, or
one hundred thousand continents; as one, one hundred, one thousand, or one hundred thousand great continents of Jambudvīpa; as
one, one hundred, one thousand, or one hundred thousand times the four great continents; as one, one hundred, one thousand, or
one hundred thousand universes of a thousand worlds; as one, one hundred, one thousand, or one hundred thousand bichiliocosms;
as one, one hundred, one thousand, one hundred thousand, ten million, one billion, ten billion, one hundred billion, or ten
trillion trichiliocosms; as one, one hundred, one thousand, one hundred thousand times an incalculable number of them; or as
many as the number of atoms present in one hundred thousand times an incalculable number of trichiliocosms.

6. “Maitreya, I have taught that objects of enjoyment are the assets and belongings owned by beings for
the sake of their enjoyment.

7. “Maitreya, a wrong view is a mistaken conception, thought, or view conceiving the impermanent as permanent,
suffering as happiness, impurity as purity, or selflessness as self with regard to notions such as an apprehending subject.

8. “Maitreya, a correct view, being the opposite of a wrong view, is its antidote.

9. “Maitreya, the object conducive to affliction is of three kinds: the object conducive to the affliction comprising
the defilements of the three worlds, to the affliction of karma, and to the affliction of arising.

10. “Maitreya, the object conducive to purification consists of all that is in harmony with awakening on account of
being free indeed from the three sorts of affliction.

“Maitreya, you should know that all objects of designation are included in these ten points.

“Moreover, Maitreya, the analytical knowledge of these objects of designation comprises five items. What
are they? They are the topics to be comprehended, the objects of designation to be comprehended, comprehension, the result of
comprehension, and the communication of this result.

1. “Maitreya, the topics to be comprehended consist of anything that is knowable or perceptible, such as what is
referred to as the aggregates, the internal and external sense domains, and so forth.

2. “Maitreya, the objects of designation to be comprehended consist of [all] cognitive objects, however diverse they
appear and as they really are: the conventional and the ultimate; shortcomings and qualities; conditions and time; the
defining characteristics of arising, abiding, and disintegrating; sickness, old age, and death; suffering, the origin of
suffering, the cessation of suffering, and the path leading to the cessation of suffering; true reality, the ultimate limit of
existence, and the domain of truth; condensed and detailed teachings; categorical, analytical, interrogative, and dismissive
answers; and secret instructions and proclamations. You should know that these are the objects of designation to be
comprehended.

3. “Maitreya, comprehension is grasping both the
topics and the objects of designation to be comprehended, any factor that is in harmony with awakening, such as the
applications of mindfulness, the correct self-restraints, and so forth.

4. “Maitreya, the result of comprehension consists of disciplining and completely eliminating desire, anger, and
delusion, as well as in actualizing the results of the path of the recluse together with the virtuous qualities of the hearers
and tathāgatas I have described as mundane and supramundane, ordinary and extraordinary.

5. “Maitreya, communicating this result consists in revealing what brings about liberation on the basis of the
very teachings one has actualized, as well as in propagating these teaching for the sake of others.

“Maitreya, you should know that all objects are subsumed within these five points.

“Maitreya, the bodhisattvas’ analytical knowledge of the objects of designation includes four topics.
What are they? They are mental appropriation, experience, affliction, and purification. Maitreya, you should know that all the
objects of designation are also included within these four topics.

“Maitreya, the bodhisattvas’ analytical knowledge of the objects of designation is also presented
according to three topics. What are they? They are letters, meanings, and contexts.

1. “Maitreya, you should understand the letters as forming collections of names.

2. “Maitreya, meanings comprise ten aspects: the defining characteristic of true reality, the defining characteristic
of comprehension, the defining characteristic of abandonment, the defining characteristic of realization, the defining
characteristic of practice, the defining characteristic consisting of these very five defining characteristics, the defining
characteristic of the relation between the support and the supported, the defining characteristic of the phenomena undermining comprehension and so forth, the
defining characteristic of the phenomena in harmony with comprehension, and the defining characteristic of the benefits and
shortcomings resulting respectively from having comprehension or not.

3. “Maitreya, there are five contexts: the context of the surrounding universe, the context of beings,
the context of Dharma, the context of discipline, and the context of methods of discipline.

“Maitreya, you should know that all objects of designation are also included within these three topics.”

“Blessed One, what differences are made between the comprehension of the objects of designation that is
produced by the wisdom arising from hearing the Dharma, the comprehension of the objects of designation that is produced by
the wisdom arising from contemplating the Dharma, and the comprehension of the objects of designation that is produced by the
wisdom arising from practicing mental stillness and insight?”

“Maitreya, through the wisdom arising from hearing the Dharma, the bodhisattvas rely on the literal meaning of words
but not on their underlying intent, which they do not understand; although they are in harmony with liberation, their
comprehension is [limited to] the objects of designation that do not liberate them.

“Maitreya, through the wisdom arising from contemplating the Dharma, the bodhisattvas do not rely exclusively on the
literal meaning of words but also on the underlying intent, which they understand; although they are in great harmony with
liberation, their comprehension is [still limited to] the objects of designation that do not liberate them.

“Maitreya, through the wisdom arising from practicing mental stillness and insight, the bodhisattvas, relying on the
literal meaning of words or not, rely on the underlying intent, which they understand by means of an image, an object of
concentration corresponding to a cognitive object; they are in great harmony with liberation, and their comprehension includes
the objects of designation that liberate them. Maitreya, such is the difference between them.”

“Blessed One, what is the gnosis of the bodhisattvas who practice mental stillness and insight
and who comprehend designations as well as objects of designation? What is their perception?”

“Maitreya, I have explained their gnosis and perception in many ways, but I
will give you a concise explanation. Gnosis consists in the mental stillness and insight that take a universal teaching as a
referential object. Perception consists in the mental stillness and insight that take a specific teaching as a referential
object.”

“Blessed One, as bodhisattvas practice mental stillness and insight, which kinds of phenomenal appearance
do they discard? How do they direct their attention to achieve this?”

“Maitreya, they discard the phenomenal appearance of designations and objects of designation by directing their
attention on true reality. They discard names by not taking the essence of names as a referential object and by not paying
attention to the phenomenal appearance that constitutes their basis. You should know that just as it is with names, so it is
also with words, letters, and all objects of designation. Maitreya, they discard letters, meanings, and contexts by not taking
their essence as a referential object and by not paying attention to the phenomenal appearance that constitutes their
basis.”

“Blessed One, is phenomenal appearance also discarded with regard to the analytical knowledge of the
object of designation corresponding to true reality?”

“Maitreya, if the analytical knowledge of the object of designation corresponding to true reality does not have a
phenomenal appearance and does not take a phenomenal appearance as its referential object, then what would be discarded in
that case? Maitreya, the analytical knowledge of the object of designation corresponding to true reality disposes of all the
phenomenal appearances of designations and objects of designation. But I did not teach that anything at all could dispose of
this analytical knowledge.”

“Blessed One, you have explained by way of analogy that it is impossible to discern one’s own
appearance in a
container filled with muddy water, a dirty mirror, or an agitated pond surface, but that it is possible in a container filled with clear water, a well-polished mirror, or
a quiet pond. You have explained that, likewise, the mind of those who do not practice cannot know true reality exactly as it
is, whereas the mind of those who do practice can indeed. In reference to this statement, what is this mental inspection? What true reality do you have in mind here, and what is the meaning of
this statement?”

“Maitreya, I spoke those words in reference to the three kinds of mental inspection: the mental inspection arising
from hearing the Dharma, the mental inspection arising from contemplating the Dharma, and the mental inspection arising from
practicing the Dharma. I taught this having in mind the true reality of representations.”

“Blessed One, how many kinds of phenomenal appearances did you teach to the bodhisattvas who possess the
analytical knowledge of designations and objects of designation and who engage in eliminating phenomenal appearances?”

“Maitreya, there are ten kinds of phenomenal appearances, and these bodhisattvas eliminate them by means of
emptiness. What are these ten?

1. “The diverse phenomenal appearances in the way of words and letters through which designations and objects of
designation are analytically known—these phenomenal appearances are eliminated by means of the emptiness of all
phenomena.

2. “The phenomenal appearances corresponding to a continuum of arisings and cessations or abidings and
transformations through which the object designated as the true reality of existence is analytically known—these phenomenal
appearances are eliminated by means of the emptiness of defining characteristic and by the emptiness of what is without
beginning and end.

3. “The phenomenal appearances resulting from the belief in a perduring self or the thought, ‘I am,’ through which
the object designated as the apprehending subject is analytically known—these phenomenal appearances are eliminated by means
of the emptiness of the inner subject and the emptiness of what is not taken as a referential object.

4. “The phenomenal appearances resulting from the belief in objects of enjoyment through which the object designated
as the apprehended object is analytically known—these phenomenal appearances are eliminated by means of the emptiness of the
outer object.

5. “The phenomenal appearances of pleasure within the inner subject and of beauty regarding the outer object through
which courtesans and
possessions are analytically known as objects of enjoyment—these phenomenal appearances are eliminated by means of the
emptiness of the outer object and the emptiness of essence.

6. “The innumerable phenomenal appearances through which objects of designation corresponding to states of existence
are analytically known—these phenomenal appearances are eliminated by means of the great
emptiness.

7. “With formlessness as a support, the phenomenal appearances of the liberation brought about by inner peace are
analytically known—these phenomenal appearances are eliminated by means of the emptiness of conditioned phenomena.

8. “The phenomenal appearance of the selflessness of persons and phenomena, the phenomenal appearance of what is
merely a representation, and the phenomenal appearance of the ultimate through which the object of designation corresponding
to the true reality of defining characteristics is analytically known—these phenomenal appearances are eliminated by means of
the emptiness of the limitless, the emptiness of the substanceless, the emptiness of essence of the substanceless, and the
emptiness of the ultimate.

9. “The phenomenal appearances of what is unconditioned and changeless through which the object of designation
corresponding to the true reality leading to purification is
analytically known—these phenomenal appearances are eliminated by means of the emptiness of the unconditioned and the
emptiness devoid of rejection.

10. “The phenomenal appearances of emptiness resulting from directing one’s attention toward this very emptiness as
an antidote to phenomenal appearances are eliminated by means of the emptiness of emptiness.”

“Blessed One, when bodhisattvas eliminate these ten kinds of phenomenal appearances, which phenomenal
appearances do they eliminate and from which binding phenomenal appearances will they be free?”

“Maitreya, by eliminating the object of concentration, the phenomenal appearance corresponding to an image, bodhisattvas will be free from phenomenal appearances consisting in the
phenomenal appearances of affliction, which they will also eliminate.

“Maitreya, you should know that these various kinds of emptiness are the direct antidotes to these various kinds of
phenomenal appearance. But it is not the case that each of them is not an antidote to all phenomenal appearances. Maitreya, it
is like this: ignorance does not [directly] bring about all afflictions up to old age and death [with regard to the twelve
factors of conditioned existence]. Yet, because it is indeed the closely or very closely related condition [for their arising,
it does bring them about indirectly]. This is why it is taught that ignorance directly brings about conditioning mental
factors. You should consider the present topic in the same way.

“Blessed One, what is it that bodhisattvas realize in the context of the Great Vehicle? What is then
inherent to the defining characteristic of emptiness that causes bodhisattvas to not deviate from it because of pride?”

Then, the Blessed One said, “Excellent, Maitreya. You question the Tathāgata on this point so that bodhisattvas will
not deviate from emptiness. This is excellent indeed. Why? Because, Maitreya, bodhisattvas who deviate from emptiness will
also deviate from the entire Great Vehicle. Therefore, listen well, Maitreya, and I will explain to you what is inherent to
the defining characteristic of emptiness.

“Maitreya, emptiness as taught in the Great Vehicle means that the other-dependent and actual defining
characteristics are completely devoid of the imaginary defining characteristic of affliction and purification and that
bodhisattvas do not take this imaginary defining characteristic as a referential object.”

“Blessed One, how many types of concentration are included within mental stillness and insight?”

“Maitreya, you should know that they include all the types of concentration of the hearers, bodhisattvas, and
tathāgatas that I have taught.”

“Blessed One, from which causes do mental stillness and insight arise?”

“Maitreya, they arise from a pure discipline and a pure view resulting from hearing and contemplating [the Dharma] as
their causes.”

“Blessed One, please explain what their results are.”

“Maitreya, a pure mind and a pure wisdom are their results. You should know that all mundane and supramundane
virtuous qualities of the hearers, the bodhisattvas, and the tathāgatas are also their results.”

“Blessed One, what is the activity of mental stillness and insight?”

“Maitreya, they liberate one from the two kinds of bonds: the bonds of phenomenal appearance and the bonds of
corruption.”

“Blessed One, among the five obstacles mentioned by the Blessed One, which are obstacles to mental
stillness, which are obstacles to insight, and which are obstacles to both?”

“Maitreya, caring about the body and objects of enjoyment is an obstacle to mental stillness. Not obtaining
instructions from noble beings as desired is an obstacle to insight. Living in a state of confusion and being content with
bare necessities are obstacles to both. On account of the first of these, one
will not exert oneself. On account of the second, one will not exert oneself through to the completion of practice.”

“Blessed One, among the five obstructions mentioned by the Blessed One, which are obstructions to mental stillness,
which are obstructions to insight, and which are obstructions to both?”

“Maitreya, agitation and remorse are obstructions to mental stillness. Laziness, lethargy, and doubts are
obstructions to insight. Craving for desired objects and malicious thoughts are obstructions to both.”

“Blessed One, when is the path of mental stillness purified?”

“At the time when agitation and remorse have been conquered.”

“Blessed One, when is the path of insight purified?”

“At the time when laziness, lethargy, and doubts have been conquered.”

“Blessed One, how many kinds of mental distractions will bodhisattvas engaged in mental stillness and insight
experience?”