大般涅槃經

Volume 32

CHAPTER TWENTY-FOUR: BODHISATTVA KASYAPA

Part II:

“Good man! Such disputation belongs to the sphere of the Buddha; it is not within the understanding of sravakas or pratyekabuddhas. If a person gives rise to doubt concerning this matter, he may yet destroy immeasurable afflictions as vast as Mount Sumeru. If a person forms a fixed conclusion concerning this matter, that is called attachment.”

Bodhisattva Kasyapa said to the Buddha:

“World-Honored One! What is called attachment?”

The Buddha said:

“Good man! Such a person may hear something from another, seek it out personally in the scriptures, or be instructed in it by another; if he cannot relinquish what he has thereby received, that is called attachment.”

Bodhisattva Kasyapa again said:

“World-Honored One! Is such attachment wholesome or unwholesome?”

“Good man! Such attachment is not called wholesome. Why? Because it cannot destroy the various nets of doubt.”

Kasyapa again said:

“World-Honored One! If such a person originally has no doubts, how can it be said that he does not destroy the net of doubt?”

“Good man! What is spoken of as having no doubt is itself doubt!”

“World-Honored One! If someone maintains that a stream-enterer does not fall into the three evil realms, must that person also be called attached and be said to have doubt?”

“Good man! That may be called certainty; it must not be called doubt. Why?

Good man! It is as though a person first sees a man and a tree. Later, at night, seeing from afar an exposed tree root, he conceives the doubt: ‘Is it a man or a tree?’ Good man!

It is as though a person first sees a bhiksu and a brahmacarin. Later, seeing a bhiksu from afar on the road, he conceives the doubt: ‘Is that a sramana or a brahmacarin?’ Good man! It is as though a person first sees an ox and a water buffalo.

Later, seeing an ox from afar, he conceives the doubt: ‘Is that an ox or a water buffalo?’ Good man! When sentient beings have previously seen two things, they subsequently give rise to doubt. Why?

Because their minds do not clearly comprehend. I have never said that a stream-enterer falls into the three evil realms. Since a stream-enterer does not fall into the three evil realms, why should such a person give rise to doubt?”

Bodhisattva Kasyapa said:

“World-Honored One! As the Buddha has said, one must first see and only afterward can one doubt. Yet why is it that some people give rise to doubt without having seen two kinds of things? Such is the case with nirvana! World-Honored One! Suppose a person traveling along a road encounters a pool of turbid water that he has never seen before, yet still gives rise to doubt: ‘Is this water deep or shallow?’ Since this person has not seen it before, how can he give rise to doubt?”

“Good man! Nirvana means the cessation of suffering; what is not nirvana is suffering. What all sentient beings perceive is of two kinds: suffering and that which is not suffering.

Suffering and that which is not suffering include hunger and thirst, heat and cold, anger and joy, sickness and well-being, old age and youth, birth and death, bondage and liberation, separation from those one loves, and meeting those one hates.... Having seen these, sentient beings then give rise to doubt: ‘Could there be an ultimate freedom from such suffering and affliction?’ Therefore, sentient beings give rise to doubt concerning nirvana.

If, according to your thought, you say, ‘Before arriving here, this person had never seen this pool of turbid water, so how could he give rise to doubt?’—this interpretation is incorrect. Why? Because he had previously seen such things elsewhere.

Therefore, although he had never before come to this place, he nevertheless gives rise to doubt.”

“World-Honored One! When this person previously saw places that were deep or shallow, he did not give rise to doubt. Why, then, does he now give rise to doubt?”

The Buddha said:

“Good man! Because he has never before traveled there, he gives rise to doubt. Therefore, I say that doubt arises from a lack of clear understanding.”

Bodhisattva Kasyapa said to the Buddha:

“World-Honored One! As the Buddha has said, doubt is attachment and attachment is doubt. Who is such a person?”

“Good man! It is one who has severed his roots of goodness.”

Kasyapa said:

“World-Honored One! What kinds of people are capable of severing their roots of goodness?”

– O good man! Suppose there is a person who is intelligent and wise, whose faculties are keen, and who is skilled in discernment, yet who keeps far away from good friends, does not listen to the true Dharma, does not contemplate it well, and does not abide in accordance with the Dharma. Such a person can sever his roots of goodness. A person who departs from those four things thinks to himself: “There is no such thing as a gift. Why is this? Giving means relinquishing wealth and possessions. If giving brought recompense, one should know that the donor ought always to be poor and destitute. Why is this? Because the seed and its fruit resemble each other. Therefore, there is neither cause nor effect.” If a person says that there is neither cause nor effect in this way, this is called severing the roots of goodness. That person further thinks: “The donor, the recipient, and the gift itself—all three are impermanent and do not remain. If they do not remain, how can one say, ‘This is the donor, the recipient, and the gift’? If there is no recipient, how can recompense be obtained? For this reason, there is neither cause nor effect.” If a person says that there is neither cause nor effect in this way, one should know that he can sever his roots of goodness. That person further thinks: “When a donor gives, there are five things that are given. After the recipient has received them, he may do good or may do evil, yet the donor likewise receives neither good nor evil recompense. According to the law of the world, fruit arises from a seed, and the fruit in turn becomes a seed. The cause is the donor, and the effect is the recipient; yet this recipient cannot, through these good or evil deeds, cause the donor to receive anything. For this reason, there is neither cause nor effect.” If a person says that there is neither cause nor effect in this way, one should know that he can sever his roots of goodness. That person further thinks: “There is no such thing as a gift. Why is this? Because the thing given is morally indeterminate. If it is morally indeterminate, how can it bring good recompense? That which brings neither good nor evil recompense is morally indeterminate. If wealth is morally indeterminate, one should know that it brings neither good nor evil recompense. Therefore, there is no giving, no cause, and no effect.” If a person says that there is neither cause nor effect in this way, one should know that he can sever his roots of goodness. That person further thinks: “Giving is merely intention. If it is intention, it is invisible, without an objective counterpart, and is not material form. If it is not material form, how can it be given? Therefore, there is no giving, no cause, and no effect.” If a person says that there is neither cause nor effect in this way, one should know that he can sever his roots of goodness. That person further thinks: “If a donor practices giving on behalf of an image of the Buddha, an image of a deity, or deceased parents, then there is no recipient. If there is no recipient, there should be no recompense. If there is no recompense, there is no cause. If there is no cause, there is no effect.” If a person says that there is neither cause nor effect in this way, one should know that he can sever his roots of goodness. That person further thinks: “There is no father and no mother. If it is said that parents are the cause from which sentient beings are born, then logically they should continually give birth without interruption. Why is this? Because the cause is always present. Yet they do not continually give birth. Therefore, one should know that there are no parents.” He further thinks: “There is no father and no mother. Why is this? If the body of a sentient being exists because of its parents, then a single person should possess both the male and female faculties. Yet a person does not possess both. One should therefore know that sentient beings do not arise because of their parents.” He further thinks: “Sentient beings are not born because of their parents. Why is this? Because one sees that sentient beings do not resemble their parents in such things as bodily form, mind, demeanor, advancing and withdrawing, and so forth. Therefore, parents are not the cause of sentient beings.” He further thinks: “Throughout the world there are four kinds of nonexistence. First, that which has not yet arisen is called nonexistent, just as a lump of clay does not yet perform the function of a jar. Second, that which has ceased is called nonexistent, just as a jar, once broken, is called nonexistent. Third, things are mutually nonexistent in one another, just as there is no horse in an ox and no ox in a horse. Fourth, that which is ultimately nonexistent is called nonexistent, like a hare’s horn or a tortoise’s hair. The parents of sentient beings are likewise the same as these four kinds of nonexistence. If it is said that parents are the cause of sentient beings, then when the parents die, their child does not necessarily die. Therefore, parents are not the cause of sentient beings.” He further thinks: “If it is said that parents are the cause of sentient beings, then sentient beings should always be born because of parents. Yet there are also beings born by transformation and beings born from moisture. Therefore, one should know that sentient beings are not born because of parents.” He further thinks: “There are sentient beings that are born and grow without parents as their cause. For example, a peahen hears the sound of thunder and immediately becomes pregnant. Likewise, a female blue sparrow drinks the tears of a male sparrow and immediately becomes pregnant. Similarly, when a female jivajivaka bird sees the male, she dances and immediately becomes pregnant.” When a person gives rise to such thoughts and does not encounter a good spiritual friend, one should know that he can sever his roots of goodness. Another person thinks: “Throughout the world, there is no good or evil karmic recompense. Why is this? Some sentient beings fully practice the ten wholesome deeds, delight in giving, and diligently cultivate merit, yet they suffer illness, die prematurely, lose their wealth and possessions, and undergo much sorrow and suffering. Other sentient beings commit the ten evil deeds, are miserly, greedy, and jealous, are lazy and indolent, and do not cultivate any good, yet their bodies are at ease and free from illness, they live to the end of a long life, possess abundant treasures, and experience no sorrow or suffering. Therefore, one should know that there is no good or evil karmic recompense.” They further think: “I have also heard sages say that some who cultivate good fall into the three evil realms when their lives end, while some who commit evil are born among humans or devas when their lives end. Therefore, one should know that there is no good or evil karmic recompense.” They further think: “All sages teach in two different ways: some say that killing brings good recompense, while others say that killing brings evil recompense. Therefore, one should know that the words of sages are not definitive. If sages themselves are not definitive, how can I determine anything? Therefore, one should know that there is no good or evil karmic recompense.” They further think: “Throughout the world, there are no sages. Why is this? If someone is said to be a sage, he should have attained the Right Path. When sentient beings who are replete with afflictions cultivate the Right Path, one should know that such practitioners possess both the Right Path and afflictions at the same time. If both are present simultaneously, one should know that the Right Path cannot destroy the fetters. If one cultivates the Right Path without afflictions, what then is there for the Right Path to accomplish? Therefore, for one replete with afflictions, the Path cannot destroy them; and for one without afflictions, the Path is useless. Therefore, one should know that throughout the world there are no sages.” They further think: “Ignorance conditions formations, and so forth, up to birth conditioning old age and death. These twelve links of dependent origination are shared by all sentient beings. The nature of the Noble Eightfold Path is likewise equal and should also be shared in this way: when one person attains it, all should attain it; when one person cultivates it, the suffering of all should cease. Why is this? Because the afflictions are equal. Yet this does not happen now. Therefore, one should know that there is no Right Path.” They further think: “Sages possess all the same qualities as ordinary beings, such as eating, drinking, walking, standing, sitting, lying down, sleeping, resting, rejoicing, laughing, hunger, thirst, heat, cold, sorrow, and fear. If in such matters they are the same as ordinary beings, one should know that sages have not attained the Noble Path. If they had attained the Noble Path, they should have permanently severed all such things.”

“If they do not put an end to such things, one should know that there is no Noble Path.” They further think: “A noble one possesses a body that experiences the pleasures of the five desires, and also insults and beats others, harbors jealousy and arrogance, undergoes suffering and pleasure, and creates good and evil karma.... For this reason, one should know that there are no noble ones. If the Path existed, it should put an end to these things.

Since these things are not ended, one should know that there is no Path.” They further think: “One who possesses great compassion is called a noble one. For what reason is one called a noble one? Because of the Path, one is called a noble one.

If the nature of the Path is compassion, it should compassionately regard all sentient beings without waiting for them to cultivate it before they can attain it. If that Path is not compassionate, how can a noble one become compassionate by attaining the Noble Path? Therefore, one should know that there is no Noble Path in the world.” They further think: “None of the four great elements arises from causes, and all sentient beings possess the nature of these four great elements; yet they do not distinguish that sentient beings on this side should come while those on the other side should not.

If the Noble Path possessed an inherent nature, it should likewise be so. But now it is not so. Therefore, one should know that there are no noble ones in the world.” They further think: “If the noble ones have one nirvana, one should know that there are no noble ones.

Why? Because it cannot be attained. According to the principle of an eternally abiding dharma, it can neither be attained nor grasped or relinquished.

If the noble ones have many nirvanas, then nirvana is impermanent. Why? Because it would be a countable dharma.

If, when each person attains nirvana, all should attain it, then nirvana cannot be many. If there are many nirvanas, they have boundaries; and if they have boundaries, how can they be called eternal? Suppose someone says that the essence of nirvana is one, but the liberations are many, just as the palate is one while the teeth and tongue are many.

This principle is incorrect! Why? Because each person separately attains what is proper to them; it is not attained by all.

Because it also has boundaries, it must be impermanent. If it is impermanent, how can it be called nirvana? If nirvana does not exist, who then is a noble one?

Therefore, one should know that there are no noble ones.” They further think: “The Path of the noble ones is not attained through causes and conditions. If the Path of the noble ones is not attained through causes and conditions, why do all beings not become noble ones? If not all people are noble ones, one should know that neither noble ones nor the Noble Path exist.” They further think: “The Noble One taught that right view has two causes and conditions: first, hearing the Dharma from another; second, inwardly reflecting upon it oneself.

If these two causes and conditions arise from conditions, then that from which they arise must in turn arise from conditions. In this way, the successive exchange continues without end. But if these two things do not arise from conditions, why do all sentient beings not attain them...?” When they give rise to such contemplations, they can sever their roots of goodness.

Good man! If a sentient being profoundly holds such views of neither cause nor effect, that person can sever the five faculties—the faculty of faith and the others. Good man!

One who severs the roots of goodness is neither a lowly, dull-witted person, nor one among the gods or the beings in the three evil realms. The same is true of one who causes a schism in the Sangha.

Bodhisattva Kasyapa said to the Buddha:

“World-Honored One! When will such a person give rise again to roots of goodness?”

The Buddha said:

“Good man! Such a person may give rise again to roots of goodness at either of two times: when first entering hell, or when emerging from hell.

“Good man! Goodness is of three kinds: past, present, and future. If it is past, its nature has already ceased of itself. Although the cause has entirely ceased, the result has not yet ripened; therefore, this is not called severing the result of the past. Because the causes of the three periods of time are severed, it is called severance.”

Bodhisattva Kasyapa said to the Buddha:

“World-Honored One! If severing the causes of the three periods of time is called severing the roots of goodness, yet one who has severed the roots of goodness possesses Buddha-nature, is this Buddha-nature then past, present, future, or does it pervade all three periods of time? If it is past, how can it be called eternal?

Buddha-nature is eternal. Therefore, one should know that it is not past. If it is future, how can it be called eternal?

Why does the Buddha say that all sentient beings will certainly attain it? If they will certainly attain it, why speak of severance? If it is present, how can it be eternal?

Why is it also said that they will certainly see it? The Tathagata has also said that Buddha-nature has six qualities: first, eternal; second, true; third, real; fourth, good; fifth, pure; and sixth, capable of being seen. If a person who has severed the roots of goodness possesses Buddha-nature, that person cannot be said to have severed the roots of goodness.

If that person has no Buddha-nature, why is it said that all sentient beings possess Buddha-nature? If it is said that Buddha-nature both exists and can be severed, how can the Tathagata also say that it is eternal?”

The Buddha said:

“Good man! For the sake of sentient beings, the Tathagata, the World-Honored One, gives four kinds of answers: first, a definite answer; second, an analytical answer; third, an answer according to the question; and fourth, an answer of setting the question aside.

“Good man! What is called a definite answer? If one asks, ‘Does evil karma yield a good result or an unwholesome result?’ one should answer definitely that it yields an unwholesome result. A question about good karma should be answered likewise. If one asks, ‘Does the Tathagata possess omniscience?’ one should answer definitely that he is omniscient. If one asks, ‘Is the Buddha-Dharma pure?’ one should answer definitely that it is certainly pure. If one asks, ‘Do the Tathagata’s disciples abide in accordance with the Dharma?’ one should answer definitely that there are those who abide in accordance with the Dharma. This is called a definite answer.

“What is called an analytical answer? It is like my teaching concerning the Dharma of the Four Noble Truths. What are the four? Suffering, its Origin, its Cessation, and the Path. What is called the Truth of Suffering? Because there are eight kinds of suffering, it is called the Truth of Suffering. What is called the Truth of Origin? Because it is the cause of the five skandhas, it is called the Truth of Origin. What is called the Truth of Cessation? Because greed, anger, and delusion are ultimately extinguished, it is called the Truth of Cessation. What is called the Truth of the Path? The thirty-seven factors conducive to the Path are called the Truth of the Path. This is called an analytical answer.

“What is called an answer according to the question? It is like my statement that all dharmas are impermanent. Someone may then ask, ‘With reference to what dharmas does the Tathagata, the World-Honored One, speak of impermanence?’ The answer is: ‘The Tathagata speaks of impermanence with reference to conditioned dharmas.’ The exchange concerning non-self is likewise. It is also like my statement that all dharmas burn others. Someone may then ask, ‘With reference to what dharmas does the Tathagata, the World-Honored One, say that all burn?’ The answer is: ‘The Tathagata says that all burn with reference to greed, anger, and delusion.’”

Good man! The Tathagata’s ten powers, four fearlessnesses, great loving-kindness and great compassion, three foundations of mindfulness, the Surangama Samadhi, and so forth; the eighty thousand kotis of gateways to samadhi; the thirty-two marks and eighty excellent characteristics; the five wisdom seals and so forth; the thirty-five thousand gateways to samadhi; the Vajra Samadhi and so forth; the four thousand two hundred gateways to samadhi; and the immeasurable and boundless samadhis of skillful means, and so forth—such dharmas are Buddha-nature.

This Buddha-nature has seven attributes: first, permanence; second, self; third, bliss; fourth, purity; fifth, truth; sixth, reality; and seventh, goodness. This is called an analytical answer. Good man!

The Buddha-nature of a bodhisattva in his final body has six attributes: first, permanence; second, purity; third, truth; fourth, reality; fifth, goodness; and sixth, being rarely seen. This is an analytical answer. As to your earlier question, whether one who has severed his roots of goodness possesses Buddha-nature: that person also possesses the Tathagata’s Buddha-nature and the Buddha-nature of the final body.

Because these two kinds of Buddha-nature are obstructed with respect to the future, they are said not to have been ultimately attained; nevertheless, they are said to exist. This is called an analytical answer. The Tathagata’s Buddha-nature is neither past, present, nor future.

The Buddha-nature of the final body is present and future: because a little of it can be seen, it is called present; because it has not yet been fully seen, it is called future. Before the Tathagata attained unsurpassed, complete, perfect enlightenment, the cause of Buddha-nature was also past, present, and future, but its fruit is not so: some fruits belong to the three times, while some fruits do not belong to the three times.

The cause of the Buddha-nature of a bodhisattva in his final body is also past, present, and future, and its fruit is likewise so. This is called an analytical answer. The Buddha-nature of a bodhisattva of the Ninth Abode has six attributes: first, permanence; second, goodness; third, truth; fourth, reality; fifth, purity; and sixth, visibility.

The cause of Buddha-nature is also past, present, and future, and its fruit is likewise so. This is called an analytical answer. The Buddha-nature of bodhisattvas from the Eighth Abode down to the Sixth Abode has five attributes: first, truth; second, reality; third, purity; fourth, goodness; and fifth, visibility.

The cause of Buddha-nature is also past, present, and future, and its fruit is likewise so. This is called an analytical answer. The Buddha-nature of bodhisattvas from the Fifth Abode down to the First Abode has five attributes: first, truth; second, reality; third, purity; fourth, visibility; and fifth, goodness or non-goodness.

Good man! These fivefold, sixfold, and sevenfold kinds of Buddha-nature will certainly be attained by one who has severed his roots of goodness; therefore, it is said that he possesses them. This is called an analytical answer.

If someone says: “Does one who has severed his roots of goodness definitely possess Buddha-nature, or does he definitely not possess Buddha-nature?” This is called a wise answer.

Bodhisattva Kasyapa said to the Buddha:

“World-Honored One! I have heard that only refraining from answering is called a wise answer. For what reason does the Tathagata now give an answer and call it a wise answer?”

“Good man! I also do not say that only wisdom that gives no answer is called a wise answer.

“Good man! Such a wise answer is further of two kinds: first, one that stops the question; and second, one that disregards it. In accordance with this meaning, it is called a wise answer.”

Bodhisattva Kasyapa said to the Buddha:

“World-Honored One! According to what the Buddha has said, how can the cause be past, present, and future, and the fruit also be past, present, and future, yet also not be past, present, or future?”

The Buddha said:

“Good man! The five skandhas are of two kinds: first, cause; and second, fruit. As cause, the five skandhas are past, present, and future.

As fruit, the five skandhas are also past, present, and future, and they are also neither past, present, nor future. Good man! All the fetters and defilements of ignorance are Buddha-nature.

Why is this? Because they are causes of Buddha-nature. From ignorance, formations, and the other defilements, the wholesome five skandhas are obtained; these are called Buddha-nature.

From the wholesome five skandhas, one proceeds until attaining unsurpassed, complete, perfect enlightenment. Therefore, earlier in the sutra I said that the Buddha-nature of sentient beings is like blood mixed with milk. Blood denotes ignorance, formations, and all the defilements.

Milk denotes the wholesome five skandhas. Therefore, I say that unsurpassed, complete, perfect enlightenment is attained from the defilements and the wholesome five skandhas. Just as the bodies of sentient beings are formed from semen and blood, so it is with Buddha-nature.

Because stream-enterers and once-returners have severed only a few defilements, their Buddha-nature is like milk. The Buddha-nature of a non-returner is like curds; that of an arhat is like fresh butter; that of those from a pratyekabuddha up to a bodhisattva of the Tenth Abode is like clarified butter; and the Tathagata’s Buddha-nature is like ghee. Good man!

Because present defilements act as obstructions, they prevent sentient beings from seeing it. It is like the grass of patience on Mount Gandhamadana, which not every ox is able to eat. Buddha-nature is likewise so.

This is called an analytical answer.”

Bodhisattva Kasyapa said to the Buddha:

“World-Honored One! If the fivefold, sixfold, and sevenfold kinds of Buddha-nature exist in the future, how can it be said that one who has severed his roots of goodness possesses Buddha-nature?”

The Buddha said:

“Good man! Sentient beings have past karma, and because of this karma as a cause, sentient beings in the present receive its results. Sentient beings also have future karma, but because it has not yet arisen, it certainly does not yet produce results. Whether there are present defilements or no defilements, all sentient beings ought clearly to see Buddha-nature in the present. Therefore, one who has severed his roots of goodness can sever them because of the causes and conditions of defilements in the present life. In future lives, through the causal power of Buddha-nature, his roots of goodness will arise again.”

Bodhisattva Kasyapa said:

“World-Honored One! How can the future give rise to roots of goodness?”

“Good man! Just as a lamp and the sun, although they have not yet arisen, can nevertheless dispel darkness, so too what will arise in the future can bring sentient beings into existence. Future Buddha-nature is likewise so. This is called an analytical answer.”

Bodhisattva Kasyapa said to the Buddha:

“World-Honored One! If the five skandhas are said to be Buddha-nature, how can it be said that the Buddha-nature of sentient beings is neither internal nor external?”

The Buddha said:

“Good man! For what reason have you forgotten this? Did I not previously say that the Buddha-nature of sentient beings is the Middle Way?”

Kasyapa said:

“World-Honored One! I truly have not forgotten! It is only because I cannot comprehend how sentient beings abide in this Middle Way that I ask this question.”

“Good man! The incomprehension of sentient beings is itself the Middle Way: sometimes there is comprehension, and sometimes there is no comprehension! Good man!

To enable sentient beings to gain understanding, I say that Buddha-nature is neither internal nor external. Why is this? Ordinary beings sometimes say that Buddha-nature dwells within the five skandhas, as fruit is contained within a vessel.

Others say that Buddha-nature exists apart from the five skandhas, like empty space. Therefore, the Tathagata teaches the Middle Way: Buddha-nature is neither within the six ayatanas nor outside the six ayatanas; rather, because inner and outer come together, it is called the Middle Way. Therefore, the Tathagata declares that Buddha-nature is itself the Middle Way.

Because it is neither internal nor external, it is called the Middle Way. This is called an analytical answer.”

Furthermore, good man! What is meant by “neither internal nor external”? Good man!

Some say that Buddha-nature is precisely the path of non-Buddhists. Why is this? Because for immeasurable kalpas, great bodhisattvas dwell among non-Buddhists, sever their afflictions, discipline their minds, and teach and transform sentient beings; only afterward do they attain unsurpassed, complete, perfect enlightenment.

Therefore, Buddha-nature is precisely the path of non-Buddhists. Others say that Buddha-nature is precisely the inner path. Why is this?

Although bodhisattvas cultivate the paths of non-Buddhists for immeasurable kalpas, if they depart from the inner path, they cannot attain unsurpassed, complete, perfect enlightenment. Therefore, Buddha-nature is precisely the inner path. Thus, the Tathagata forestalls these two extreme views by saying that Buddha-nature is neither internal nor external; it is also called both internal and external, and is called the Middle Way.

This is called a discriminating answer.

Furthermore, good man! Some say that Buddha-nature is precisely the Tathagata’s vajra body, endowed with the thirty-two excellent marks and eighty minor characteristics. Why is this?

Because it is not false or deceptive. Others say that Buddha-nature is precisely the Ten Powers, the Four Fearlessnesses, great loving-kindness and great compassion, the Four Foundations of Mindfulness, the Surangama, and all other samadhis. Why is this?

Because through these samadhis arises the vajra body endowed with the thirty-two excellent marks and eighty minor characteristics. Thus, the Tathagata forestalls these two extreme views by saying that Buddha-nature is neither internal nor external; it is also called both internal and external, and is called the Middle Way. This is called a discriminating answer.

Furthermore, good man! Some say that Buddha-nature is precisely proper reflection within. Why is this?

Because apart from proper reflection, one cannot attain unsurpassed, complete, perfect enlightenment. Therefore, Buddha-nature is precisely proper reflection within. Others say that Buddha-nature is precisely hearing the Dharma from others.

Why is this? By hearing the Dharma from others, one can properly reflect within. If one does not hear the Dharma, there can be no reflection.

Therefore, Buddha-nature is precisely hearing the Dharma from others. Thus, the Tathagata forestalls these two extreme views by saying that Buddha-nature is neither internal nor external; it is also called both internal and external, and is called the Middle Way. Furthermore, good man!

Some also say that Buddha-nature is external, like dana-paramita, for through dana-paramita one attains unsurpassed, complete, perfect enlightenment. Therefore, it is said that dana-paramita is precisely Buddha-nature. Others say that Buddha-nature is internal, like the other five paramitas.

Why is this? Apart from these five practices, one should know that there is neither the cause nor the fruit of Buddha-nature. Therefore, it is said that the five paramitas are precisely Buddha-nature.

Thus, the Tathagata forestalls these two extreme views by saying that Buddha-nature is neither internal nor external, yet is both internal and external. This is called the Middle Way. Furthermore, good man!

Some say that Buddha-nature is within, like the precious jewel on the brow of a strong man. Why is this? Because permanence, bliss, self, and purity are like a precious jewel.

Therefore, it is said that Buddha-nature is within. Others say that Buddha-nature is external, like the treasure of a poor man. Why is this?

Because it is seen only through skillful means. Buddha-nature is likewise: being external to sentient beings, it can be seen only through skillful means. Thus, the Tathagata forestalls these two extreme views by saying that Buddha-nature is neither internal nor external, yet is both internal and external.

This is called the Middle Way.

Good man! The Buddha-nature of sentient beings is neither existent nor nonexistent. Why is this so?

Although Buddha-nature exists, it is not like empty space. Why is this? Although one may employ immeasurable skillful means, the empty space of the world cannot be seen, whereas Buddha-nature can be seen.

Therefore, although it exists, it is not like empty space. Although Buddha-nature is nonexistent, it is not the same as a rabbit’s horn. Why is this?

Although one may employ immeasurable skillful means, a turtle’s hair or a rabbit’s horn can never be brought into existence, whereas Buddha-nature can be brought forth. Therefore, although Buddha-nature is nonexistent, it is not the same as a rabbit’s horn. Thus, Buddha-nature is neither existent nor nonexistent, yet is both existent and nonexistent.

What is meant by existent? All possess it! These sentient beings are neither cut off nor extinguished, like the flame of a brightly burning lamp, until they attain unsurpassed, complete, perfect enlightenment.

This is called existent. What is meant by nonexistent? At present, no sentient being yet possesses all the Buddha-dharmas of permanence, bliss, self, and purity.

Therefore, it is called nonexistent. The conjunction of existence and nonexistence is precisely the Middle Way. Therefore, the Buddha said that the Buddha-nature of sentient beings is neither existent nor nonexistent.

Good man! If someone asks, “Does this seed contain a fruit or not?” one should answer definitively, “It both does and does not!” Why is this? Because apart from the seed, the fruit cannot be produced.

Therefore, it is said to exist. Since the seed has not yet sprouted, it is said not to exist. For this reason, it both exists and does not exist.

Why is this so? Because the times differ, but the essence is one. The Buddha-nature of sentient beings is likewise.

If one says that within sentient beings there is a separate and distinct Buddha-nature, that assertion is incorrect. Why is this? Sentient beings are precisely Buddha-nature, and Buddha-nature is precisely sentient beings; it is only because the times differ that there is purity or impurity.

Good man! If someone asks, “Can this seed produce fruit? Can this fruit produce a seed?” one should answer definitively, “It both produces and does not produce!”

– World-Honored One! When people in the world say that curds are present within milk, what does this mean?

“Good man! If someone says that curds exist in milk, this is called attachment. If one says that curds do not exist in milk, this is called falsehood.

Free from these two positions, one should definitively say that they both exist and do not exist. Why is it said that they exist? Because curds arise from milk.

The cause is milk, and the result is curds. This is called existence. Why is it said that they do not exist?

Their color and flavor are different, and their uses are not the same: one drinks milk for a hot illness and curds for a cold illness. Milk gives rise to cold illnesses, while curds give rise to hot illnesses. Good man!

If one says that milk possesses the nature of curds, then milk would be curds and curds would be milk. If their nature were one, for what reason would milk appear first while curds did not arise first? If there is a cause for this, why does no one in the world speak of it?

If there is no cause, why do curds not appear first? If curds do not appear first, who establishes the sequence of milk, curds, fresh butter, clarified butter, and ghee? Therefore, you should know that curds did not exist before but exist now.

If they did not exist before but exist now, they are an impermanent dharma. Good man! If someone says, ‘Because milk possesses the nature of curds, it can produce curds.

Because water does not possess the nature of curds, it cannot produce curds,’ this doctrine is incorrect. Why is this? Because water and grass also possess the nature of milk and curds.

Why is that? Because milk and curds arise dependent upon water and grass. If one says that the nature of curds definitely exists in milk but not in water and grass, this is called falsehood.

Why? Because one speaks falsely through a mind that is not impartial. Good man!

If one says that curds definitely exist in milk, then the nature of milk should also definitely exist in curds. For what reason, then, do curds arise from milk, while milk does not arise from curds? If there is no reason, you should know that curds did not exist before but exist now.

Therefore, the wise should say that milk neither possesses nor lacks the nature of curds. Good man! Therefore, in the sutras the Tathagata speaks these words: ‘All sentient beings definitely possess Buddha-nature.’ This is called attachment.

If one says that there is no Buddha-nature, this is called falsehood. The wise should say that the Buddha-nature of sentient beings both exists and does not exist.

“Good man! Four conditions come together to produce eye-consciousness. What are the four?

They are the eye, visible form, light, and the desire to see. The nature of this eye-consciousness is neither the eye, nor visible form, nor light, nor the desire to see; yet because of their conjunction, it arises. Thus, eye-consciousness did not exist before but exists now, and once it exists, it again returns to nonexistence.

Therefore, you should know that it has no intrinsic nature. The nature of curds in milk is also like this. If someone says, ‘Because water does not possess the nature of curds, it cannot produce curds; therefore, the nature of curds definitely exists in milk,’ this doctrine is incorrect.

Why is this? Good man! All dharmas have different causes and different results.

Nor does one cause produce every result, nor do all results arise from one cause. Good man! Just as eye-consciousness arises from four conditions, one cannot further say that ear-consciousness should arise from those same four conditions.

Good man! Can curds be obtained from milk, and fresh butter then produced from curds, apart from skillful means? Or must this be accomplished through skillful means?

Good man! The wise cannot perceive curds being obtained from milk apart from skillful means. If that were possible, fresh butter should likewise be obtainable apart from skillful means.

Good man! Therefore, in this sutra I say: ‘Because a cause arises, a dharma exists; because a cause ceases, a dharma ceases.’ Good man! Salt possesses a salty nature and can make that which is not salty become salty.

If something that was not salty already possessed a salty nature, why would people in the world seek saltiness? If it previously lacked a salty nature, you should know that saltiness did not exist before but exists now, and that it becomes salty through other conditions. Suppose one says, ‘All things that are not salty possess a salty nature, but because it is slight, it cannot be perceived.

It is through this slight salty nature that they can be made salty. If they originally lacked a salty nature, then even if salt were added, it could not make them salty. This is analogous to a seed whose own four great elements, conditioned by the four great elements outside it, enable its shoot, stem, branches, and leaves to grow.

The nature of salt is also like this.’ This doctrine is incorrect. Why? If something that is not salty already possesses a salty nature, then salt should likewise possess a slight nature of being unsalty.

If salt possessed these two natures, for what reason could it not be used by itself, apart from something that is not salty? Therefore, you should know that salt originally does not possess these two natures. Just as this is so with salt, it is likewise so with all things that are not salty.

If one says that the power of a seed, apart from the four great elements outside it, can cause the four great elements within it to grow, this doctrine is incorrect. Why? Because this is explained according to sequence.

Curds are not obtained from milk without skillful means, after which fresh butter is produced; all dharmas are likewise and cannot be obtained without skillful means. The four great elements are also like this. If one says that the four great elements within are increased by the four great elements outside, one does not see the four great elements outside being increased by the four great elements within.

It is like the fruit of the sirisa tree: previously it has no physical form, but when the Pleiades appear, the fruit is born and grows to a full five inches. Such a fruit does not truly grow because of the four great elements outside it.

“Good man! As I have said, among the twelve divisions of the scriptures, some teachings I deliver according to my own intent, some according to the intent of others, and some according to both my own intent and the intent of others.

“What is meant by speaking according to my own intent? Five hundred bhiksus once asked Sariputra, ‘Venerable sir! What did the Buddha say is the cause of the body?’ Sariputra replied, ‘Venerable ones!

You have all attained Right Liberation and should know this yourselves. For what reason do you now ask such a question?’ One bhiksu said, ‘Venerable sir! Before I attained Right Liberation, I regarded ignorance—that is, mental volition—as the cause of the body.

When I undertook this contemplation, I attained the fruit of arhatship.’ Another bhiksu said, ‘Venerable sir! Before I attained true liberation, I regarded craving and ignorance as the cause of the body. When I gave rise to this contemplation, I attained the fruit of arhatship.’ Others said that formations, consciousness, name-and-form, the six sense entrances, contact, feeling, craving, grasping, becoming, birth, food and drink, and the five sensual desires were the causes of the body.

At that time, each of the five hundred bhiksus explained his own understanding. They then went together to the Buddha, bowed their heads at his feet, and circumambulated him clockwise three times. Having paid homage, they withdrew and sat to one side.

Each then presented to the Buddha his understanding as described above. Sariputra addressed the Buddha, saying, ‘World-Honored One! Among these people, who has spoken correctly, and who has spoken incorrectly?’ The Buddha said, ‘Sariputra!

Excellent, excellent! Has not each bhiksu spoken correctly?’ Sariputra said, ‘World-Honored One! What is the Buddha’s intent?’ The Buddha replied, ‘Sariputra!

For the sake of sentient beings in the Realm of Desire, I teach that father and mother are the causes of the body.’ Sutras such as this are called teachings spoken according to my own intent.”

What is meant by speaking according to the intentions of others? The elder Pāṭala once came to me and said: “Venerable Gautama! Do you understand illusions? If you understand illusions, then you are a great illusionist. If you do not understand them, then you are not the All-Knowing One!”

I said: “Elder! Is one who understands illusions to be called an illusionist?”

The elder replied: “Excellent! Excellent! One who understands illusions is indeed an illusionist!”

The Buddha said: “Elder! In the kingdom of Śrāvastī, ruled by King Prasenajit, there is a caṇḍāla named Khí Hư. Do you know him?”

The elder replied: “Venerable Gautama! I have known him for a long time!”

The Buddha said: “Because you have known him for a long time, can you thereby become a caṇḍāla?”

The elder said: “Venerable Gautama! Although I know that caṇḍāla, this body of mine is not that of a caṇḍāla!”

The Buddha said: “Elder! You understand this principle: one who knows a caṇḍāla is not thereby a caṇḍāla. Why, then, may I not understand illusions without being an illusionist? Elder! I truly understand illusions; I understand illusionists, the karmic consequences of illusion, and the arts of illusion. I understand killing, those who kill, the karmic consequences of killing, and liberation from killing... up to and including understanding wrong views, those who hold wrong views, the karmic consequences of wrong views, and liberation from wrong views. Elder! If one calls a person who is not an illusionist an illusionist, or calls one who does not hold wrong views a person of wrong views, one incurs immeasurable wrongdoing.”

The elder said: “Venerable Gautama! According to what you have said, I have committed a grave offense. Today I offer all my possessions to you. I beg you not to let King Prasenajit know what I have done!”

The Buddha said: “Elder! The karmic conditions of that offense do not necessarily entail the loss of wealth, but because of it you may fall into the three evil destinies!”

When the elder heard the names of the evil destinies, fear arose in his heart, and he addressed the Buddha: “Holy One! In my heedlessness I have incurred a grave offense! Holy One! You are indeed the All-Knowing One and therefore must clearly know and have realized liberation! What must I do to escape hell, the realm of hungry ghosts, and the animal realm?”

I then expounded the Four Noble Truths for him. After hearing them, the elder attained the fruit of stream-entry. Shame and moral dread arose in his heart, and he confessed before the Buddha, saying: “I was originally ignorant. Although the Buddha is not an illusionist, I called him one! From this day onward, I take refuge in the Three Jewels!”

The Buddha said: “Excellent! Excellent, Elder!”

This is called speaking according to the intentions of others.

What is meant by speaking according to both one’s own intention and the intentions of others? As I have said, when all the wise people of the world say that something exists, I too say that it exists. When the wise say that something does not exist, I too say that it does not exist. The wise of the world say that the pleasures of the five desires are impermanent, suffering, and non-self, and can be severed; I too say that this is so. The wise of the world say that the pleasures of the five desires are permanent, self, and pure—but no such thing exists. I too say that no such thing exists. This is called speaking according to both one’s own intention and the intentions of others.

Good man! As I have said, bodhisattvas of the Tenth Stage perceive only a little of Buddha-nature. This is called speaking according to the intentions of others. Why is it called perceiving only a little? Because bodhisattvas of the Tenth Stage attain the Śūraṅgama Samādhi and three thousand other Dharma gates. Therefore, they themselves clearly know that they will attain unsurpassed, complete, perfect enlightenment, yet they do not perceive that all sentient beings will certainly attain unsurpassed, complete, perfect enlightenment. Therefore, I say that bodhisattvas of the Tenth Stage perceive only a small portion of Buddha-nature.

Good man! Although I have always said, “All sentient beings possess Buddha-nature,” this is called speaking according to my own intention. “All sentient beings are neither annihilated nor destroyed... until they attain unsurpassed, complete, perfect enlightenment.” This is called speaking according to my own intention. “All sentient beings possess Buddha-nature, but because it is obscured by afflictions, they cannot perceive it.” I say this, and you say the same. This is called speaking according to both one’s own intention and the intentions of others.

Good man! Sometimes, for the sake of a single Dharma, the Tathagata teaches immeasurable Dharmas. As stated in the sutras, a spiritual friend is the cause of all pure conduct.

Although the causes of all pure conduct are immeasurable, by speaking of a spiritual friend, they are all encompassed. As I have said, wrong views are the cause of all evil conduct. Although the causes of all evil conduct are immeasurable, by speaking of wrong views, they are all encompassed.

Or it is said: Faith is the cause of unsurpassed, complete, perfect enlightenment. Although the causes of this bodhi are likewise immeasurable, by speaking of faith, they are all encompassed. Good man!

Although the Tathagata has spoken of immeasurable Dharmas as constituting Buddha-nature, they do not depart from the skandhas, ayatanas, and dhatus—the five skandhas, six ayatanas, and eighteen dhatus.

Good man! For the sake of sentient beings, the Tathagata teaches the Dharma by means of seven kinds of speech: first, speech concerning causes; second, speech concerning results; third, speech concerning causes and results; fourth, figurative speech; fifth, speech that ought not to be uttered; sixth, conventional speech current in the world; and seventh, speech according to one’s intention.

What is speech concerning causes? It is to speak of a future result in terms of a present cause. As I have said: “Good man! If you see a sentient being who delights in killing and harming, up to and including delighting in practicing wrong views, you should know that this person is indeed a person of hell. Good man! If there is a sentient being who does not delight in killing and harming... up to and including wrong views, you should know that this person is indeed a person of the heavenly realms.” This is called speech concerning causes.

What is speech concerning results? It is to speak of a past cause in terms of a present result. As stated in the sutras: “Good man! If, as you have seen, sentient beings are impoverished, ugly in appearance, and without freedom or autonomy, you should know that such people have certainly broken the precepts and harbored jealousy, anger, and shamelessness. If you see sentient beings who possess abundant wealth and great riches, whose faculties are complete, and who enjoy dignity, virtue, freedom, and autonomy, you should know that they have observed the precepts, practiced generosity and diligence, possessed shame and moral dread, and been free from jealousy and anger.” This is called speech concerning results.

What is speech concerning causes and results? As stated in the sutras: “Good man! The present contact arising through a sentient being’s six ayatanas is called the result of past karma. The Tathagata also says that this is itself called karma. Because of the causes and conditions of present karma, one obtains a future result.” This is called speech concerning causes and results.

What is figurative speech? When it is said, “The Lion King,” this is a figure for my own person. Likewise, the Great Elephant King, the Great Dragon King, the pārijāta tree, a heap of the seven treasures, the great ocean, Mount Sumeru, the great earth, a great rain, a shipmaster, a guide, a trainer, a true man, a mighty champion, the Bull King, a brahmin, a śramaṇa, a great city, a palmyra tree, and so forth—such figures are called figurative speech in the sutras.

What is speech that ought not to be uttered? In the sutras I say: “Heaven and earth may come together, and rivers may cease to flow into the sea.” As I said to King Prasenajit: “The mountains from the four directions are approaching!” As I said to the laywoman Mother of Migāra: “If a śāla tree could undertake the eight precepts, it would enjoy the bliss of humans and devas!” As it is said: “One might sooner say that a bodhisattva of the Tenth Stage has a mind that regresses than say that the Tathagata speaks with two kinds of speech. One might sooner say that a stream-enterer falls into the three evil destinies than say that a bodhisattva of the Tenth Stage has a mind that regresses.” This is called speech that ought not to be uttered.

What is called worldly conventional speech? It is such language as the Buddha’s words concerning men and women, old and young, going and coming, sitting and lying down, vehicles, dwellings, vessels, clothing, sentient beings, permanence, bliss, self, and purity, armies, forests, cities, villages, magical transformations, union and separation, and so forth. This is called worldly conventional speech.

What is called speech according to one’s intent? When I rebuke those who violate the precepts, I do so to cause them to reproach themselves and uphold the precepts. When I praise stream-enterers, I do so to cause ordinary beings to give rise to wholesome intentions. When I praise bodhisattvas, I do so to cause sentient beings to arouse the aspiration for bodhi. When I speak of the suffering and afflictions of the three evil realms, I do so to cause people to cultivate wholesome dharmas. When I say that all is burning, the same applies to all conditioned dharmas and non-self. When I say that all sentient beings possess Buddha-nature, I do so to cause all beings to refrain from heedlessness. This is called speech according to one’s intent.

Good man! The Tathagata also has speech that follows his own intent: the Tathagata’s Buddha-nature is of two kinds: first, existent; second, nonexistent. Existent refers to the thirty-two excellent marks, the eighty beautiful characteristics, the ten powers, the four fearlessnesses, the three foundations of mindfulness, great loving-kindness and great compassion, the Surangama and other innumerable samadhis, the Vajra and other innumerable samadhis, skillful means and other innumerable samadhis, and the seals of the five wisdoms and other innumerable samadhis.

This is called existent. Nonexistent refers to the Tathagata’s past wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate actions, the karmic causes and their resultant retributions, afflictions, the five skandhas, and the twelve links of dependent origination. This is called nonexistent.

Good man! Just as there are existence and nonexistence, so too there are wholesome and unwholesome, contaminated and uncontaminated, worldly and non-worldly, noble and non-noble, conditioned and unconditioned, real and unreal, quiescent and non-quiescent, contentious and non-contentious, realms and non-realms, afflictions and non-afflictions, grasping and non-grasping, predictions and non-predictions, existence and nonexistence, the three periods of time and what is not the three periods of time, time and non-time, permanence and impermanence, self and non-self, bliss and non-bliss, purity and non-purity, form, feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness and what is not form, feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness,

the internal ayatanas and what is not the internal ayatanas, the external ayatanas and what is not the external ayatanas, and the twelve links of dependent origination and what is not the twelve links of dependent origination.

This is called the existence and nonexistence of the Tathagata’s Buddha-nature... and so forth, up to the existence and nonexistence of the icchantika’s Buddha-nature, which is likewise so.

Good man! Although I say that all sentient beings possess Buddha-nature, sentient beings cannot understand such speech of the Buddha that follows his own intent.

Good man! Even a bodhisattva in his final existence cannot understand such speech, much less those of the two vehicles and the other classes of bodhisattvas. Good man! Once in the past, when I was on Vulture Peak, Bodhisattva Maitreya and I discussed conventional truth together. Sariputra and the other five hundred sravakas understood nothing of this matter, much less the ultimate truth of the supramundane path.

Good man! There is a kind of Buddha-nature that icchantikas possess but those with wholesome roots do not. There is a kind of Buddha-nature that those with wholesome roots possess but icchantikas do not. There is a kind of Buddha-nature that both possess. There is a kind of Buddha-nature that neither possesses.

Good man! If my disciples understand the meaning of these four propositions, they should not challenge others by asking whether an icchantika definitely possesses Buddha-nature or definitely does not possess Buddha-nature. If it is said that all sentient beings possess Buddha-nature, this is called speech of the Tathagata that follows his own intent. How could sentient beings understand in only one fixed way such speech of the Tathagata that follows his own intent?

Good man! In the Ganges River there are seven kinds of creatures: first, those that remain perpetually submerged; second, those that emerge briefly and then sink again; third, those that emerge and then remain; fourth, those that emerge and survey the four directions; fifth, those that survey all around and then move on; sixth, those that move on and then stop again; seventh, those that move both in the water and on land.

The creature that remains perpetually submerged is a great fish that has incurred grave evil karma; its body is heavy and it dwells in deep waters. Therefore, it remains perpetually submerged. The creature that emerges briefly and then sinks again is a great fish that has incurred evil karma; its body is heavy, but it dwells in shallow waters and briefly sees the light.

Because of the light, it briefly emerges, but because it is heavy, it sinks again. The creature that emerges and then remains is the fish called Zhiyi; it dwells in shallow waters and delights in seeing the light, so after emerging, it remains. The creature that remains and surveys the four directions is the fish called Ji; because it is searching for food, it surveys the four directions.

The creature that surveys and then moves on is the fish called Ji; from afar it sees something else that it thinks can be eaten, so it quickly moves toward it. The creature that surveys and then moves on, and after moving on stops again, is this fish which, having arrived and obtained edible prey, immediately stops; therefore, it is called one that moves on and then stops again. The creature that moves both in the water and on land is the turtle.

Good man! Such is the wondrous river of Great Nirvana. Within that river there are also seven kinds of beings, from the first kind, who are always submerged, to the seventh kind, who either enter or emerge.

Those said to be always submerged are people who hear in this Great Nirvana Sutra that the Tathagata abides eternally and undergoes no change; that he is Eternal, Blissful, the Self, and Pure; that he definitively does not ultimately enter nirvana; that all sentient beings possess Buddha-nature; that icchantikas who slander the Vaipulya sutras, commit the five heinous offenses, or violate the four grave prohibitions will certainly attain the path of bodhi; and that stream-enterers, once-returners, non-returners, arhats, pratyekabuddhas, and so forth will certainly attain unsurpassed, complete, perfect enlightenment.

After hearing these words, they give rise to disbelief and immediately form this thought. Having formed this thought, they then say: “This Nirvana scripture is a book of the non-Buddhist paths; it is not a Buddhist sutra.”

At that time, such people distance themselves from good spiritual friends and do not hear the true Dharma. Although they may sometimes hear it, they are unable to contemplate it. Although they may contemplate it, they do not contemplate it well. Because they do not contemplate it well, they abide in evil dharmas.

Those who abide in evil dharmas possess six qualities: first, evil; second, unwholesomeness; third, defiling the Dharma; fourth, increasing existence; fifth, afflictive heat; and sixth, undergoing evil retribution. This is called being submerged.

Why is it called being submerged? Because they have no wholesome mind, constantly commit evil, and do not cultivate its antidotes. This is called being submerged.

It is called evil because it is reproached by noble ones, causes fear to arise in the mind, causes good people to keep their distance, and brings no benefit to sentient beings. This is called evil.

Unwholesomeness means that it can produce immeasurable evil retributions; one is constantly bound and disturbed by ignorance, delights in befriending evil people, does not cultivate wholesome skillful means, and has a distorted mind that is perpetually mistaken. This is called unwholesomeness.

Defiling the Dharma means constantly defiling one’s body and speech, defiling pure sentient beings, increasing unwholesome karma, and distancing oneself from wholesome dharmas. This is called defiling the Dharma.

Increasing existence means that conduct such as the foregoing three kinds can increase rebirth in hell, among animals, and among hungry ghosts; one cannot cultivate the Dharma of liberation, and one’s bodily, verbal, and mental karma never wearies of the various realms of existence. This is called increasing existence.

A person afflicted by heat is one who fully performs the four foregoing kinds of deeds, thereby causing two kinds of affliction in body and mind. Being far removed from quiescence is called heat. Undergoing the retribution of hell is called heat. Burning sentient beings is called heat. Burning wholesome dharmas is called heat. Good man! Such a person does not possess the coolness of faith. Therefore, this is called heat.

Undergoing evil retribution means that a person who possesses the foregoing five qualities falls after death into hell, the realm of hungry ghosts, or the animal realm. Good man! There are three evil things that are also called evil retribution: first, the evil of the afflictions; second, evil karma; and third, evil retribution. This is called undergoing evil retribution.

Good man! A person who possesses the foregoing six qualities can sever roots of goodness, commit the five heinous offenses, violate the four grave prohibitions, slander the Three Jewels, use property belonging to the Sangha, and commit all manner of unlawful deeds. Because of these causes and conditions, that person sinks into Avici Hell and must assume a body eighty-four thousand yojanas in length and breadth. Because this person’s bodily, verbal, and mental karma is heavy, that person cannot escape. Why is this? Because that person’s mind cannot give rise to wholesome dharmas. Thus, although immeasurable Buddhas appear in the world, that person neither hears nor sees them and is therefore said to be always submerged and lost, like a great fish in the Ganges River.

Good man! Although I have said that icchantikas and the like are called those who are always lost, there are also people who are always submerged and lost but are not icchantikas. Who are they? They are people who cultivate giving, morality, and goodness for the sake of existence. They are called those who are always submerged and lost.

Good man! There are four wholesome deeds that reap evil fruit. What are these four? First, reading and reciting scriptures in order to surpass others; second, observing the prohibitory precepts for the sake of offerings and material gain; third, practicing giving because one is beholden to others; and fourth, concentrating the mind in contemplation for the sake of attaining the Sphere of Neither Perception nor Non-Perception. These are the four wholesome deeds that bring evil retribution.

If a person cultivates these four deeds, that person is said to submerge and then emerge again, and having emerged, to submerge again. Why is it called submerging? Because that person delights in the three realms of existence. Why is it called emerging? Because that person sees the light. The light means hearing about giving, morality, and concentration. Why does that person submerge again? Because that person increases wrong views and gives rise to arrogance. Therefore, in the Sutra I spoke this verse:

If sentient beings delight in the realms of existence,

For the sake of existence they create both evil and good karma;

Such people thereby lose the path to nirvana—

This is called briefly emerging and then submerging again.

They journey through the dark ocean of birth and death;

Though they gain release, it is mingled with afflictions.

Such people return to undergo evil retribution—

This is called briefly emerging and then submerging again.

Good man! That great fish briefly emerges from the water because it sees the light. But because its body is heavy, it sinks down again. The foregoing two kinds of people are likewise.

Good man! Again, there may be a person who delights in and craves the three realms of existence; this is called submerging. Upon hearing this Great Nirvana Sutra, that person gives rise to faith; this is called emerging. For what cause and condition is it called emerging? Because, after hearing this Sutra, that person distances himself from evil dharmas and cultivates wholesome dharmas; therefore, it is called emerging.

Although this person has faith, that faith is still incomplete. For what cause and condition is the faith incomplete? Although this person believes that Great Parinirvana is Eternal, Blissful, the Self, and Pure, that person says that the body of the Tathagata is impermanent, without self, without bliss, and impure. That person says that the Tathagata has two kinds of nirvana: first, conditioned nirvana; and second, unconditioned nirvana. Conditioned nirvana is not Eternal, Blissful, the Self, and Pure, whereas unconditioned nirvana is Eternal, Blissful, the Self, and Pure. Although such people believe that sentient beings possess Buddha-nature, they do not maintain that all sentient beings definitely possess Buddha-nature. Therefore, their faith is called incomplete.

Good man! Faith is of two kinds: first, believing; and second, seeking. Although such people possess faith, they are unable to seek. Therefore, their faith is called incomplete.

Faith is also of two kinds: first, faith arising from hearing; and second, faith arising from reflection. This person’s faith arises from hearing and not from reflection. Therefore, that person’s faith is called incomplete.

Faith is also of two kinds: first, faith that the path exists; and second, faith that there are people who attain the path. This person believes only that the path exists but does not at all believe that there are people who attain the path. Therefore, that person’s faith is called incomplete.

Faith is also of two kinds: first, right faith; and second, wrong faith. To affirm that cause and effect exist and that the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha exist is called right faith. To claim that cause and effect do not exist, that the Three Jewels differ in nature, and to believe the perverse and false teachings of Purana and others is called wrong faith. Although this person believes in the Jewel of the Buddha, the Jewel of the Dharma, and the Jewel of the Sangha, that person does not believe that the Three Jewels share a single nature and characteristic. Although that person believes in cause and effect, that person does not believe that there are people who undergo their resulting retributions. Therefore, that person’s faith is called incomplete.

That person’s faith is incomplete, and their observance of the precepts is also incomplete. For what reason is it called incomplete? Because the cause is incomplete, the precepts thereby obtained are also incomplete.

Again, for what reason is it called incomplete? Because there are two kinds of precepts: first, the precepts of dignified conduct; second, the precepts that follow from the precepts. Although that person fully observes the precepts of dignified conduct, they do not fully observe the precepts that follow from the precepts.

Therefore, their observance of the precepts is called incomplete. Again, there are two kinds of precepts: first, actively undertaken precepts; second, non-active precepts. That person possesses only the actively undertaken precepts and does not possess the non-active precepts.

Therefore, their observance of the precepts is called incomplete. Again, there are two kinds of precepts: first, those whereby right livelihood is obtained through body and speech; second, those whereby right livelihood is not obtained through body and speech. That person possesses only those whereby right livelihood is not obtained through body and speech.

Therefore, their observance of the precepts is called incomplete. Again, there are two kinds of precepts: first, precepts that seek existence; second, precepts of relinquishment. That person possesses only the precepts that seek existence and does not attain the precepts of relinquishment.

Therefore, their observance of the precepts is called incomplete. Again, there are two kinds of precepts: first, those that accord with existence; second, those that accord with the Path. That person possesses only the precepts that accord with existence and does not possess the precepts that accord with the Path.

Therefore, their observance of the precepts is called incomplete. Again, there are two kinds of precepts: first, wholesome precepts; second, unwholesome precepts. Wholesomeness of body, speech, and mind is called wholesome precepts.

The precepts of oxen and the precepts of dogs are called unwholesome precepts. That person deeply believes that both kinds of precepts yield wholesome karmic results. Therefore, their observance of the precepts is called incomplete.

That person does not possess complete faith regarding these two aspects of the precepts. Their cultivation and study through extensive learning are also incomplete. How is their learning called incomplete?

Of the twelve divisions of scripture taught by the Tathagata, they believe only six divisions and disbelieve the other six. Therefore, their learning is called incomplete. Furthermore, they merely receive and retain those six divisions of scripture but are unable to read and recite them or explain them to others, and thus derive no benefit.

Therefore, their learning is called incomplete. Furthermore, after receiving those six divisions of scripture, they retain, read, recite, and explain them for the sake of disputation, to surpass others, for gain and support, and for the various forms of existence. Therefore, their learning is called incomplete.

Good man! In the scriptures I have explained what incomplete learning is; what, then, is complete learning? If a bhiksu is wholesome in body, speech, and mind, he is first able to make offerings to his preceptor, his teachers, and virtuous persons.

These teachers and others then give rise to loving concern for him. For this reason, they teach and transmit the scriptures and Dharma to him, and he wholeheartedly receives, retains, reads, recites, and cultivates them. Having received, retained, read, recited, and cultivated them, he acquires wisdom.

Having acquired wisdom, he is able to contemplate skillfully and abide in accordance with the Dharma. Having contemplated skillfully, he attains the true meaning. Having attained the true meaning, his body and mind become tranquil.

When his body and mind are tranquil, joy arises in him. Through the condition of joy, his mind attains concentration. Through the cause of concentration, he attains Right Knowledge and Right View.

Having attained Right Knowledge and Right View, he becomes disenchanted with and remorseful regarding the various forms of existence. Because he is disenchanted with and remorseful regarding the various forms of existence, he is able to attain liberation. Since that person possesses none of these qualities, their learning is called incomplete.

Because that person does not possess these three qualities completely, their giving is also incomplete. There are two kinds of giving: first, the giving of material wealth; second, the giving of Dharma. Although that person practices the giving of material wealth, they do so to seek existence.

Although they practice the giving of Dharma, that giving is also incomplete. Why is this? Because they keep teachings concealed and do not explain them fully, fearing that others may surpass them.

Therefore, their giving is called incomplete. Both the giving of material wealth and the giving of Dharma are each of two kinds: first, noble; second, ignoble. Noble persons give without seeking karmic reward.

Ignoble persons give while seeking karmic reward. Noble persons give the Dharma to increase the Dharma. Ignoble persons give the Dharma to increase the various forms of existence.

Such persons practice material giving out of craving for wealth and practice Dharma-giving to increase the various forms of existence. Therefore, their giving is called incomplete. Furthermore, after receiving the six divisions of scripture, that person provides for those who accept the Dharma but does not provide for those who do not accept it.

This is called incomplete giving.

Because that person does not possess the four foregoing qualities completely, their cultivation of wisdom is also incomplete. The nature of wisdom is the capacity to discern. That person is unable to discern whether the Tathagata is permanent or impermanent.

In this Nirvana Sutra, the Tathagata has said: the Tathagata is liberation; liberation is the Tathagata; the Tathagata is nirvana; nirvana is liberation. That person is unable to discern the meaning of this. The pure life is the Tathagata; the Tathagata is loving-kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity.

Loving-kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity are liberation; liberation is nirvana; nirvana is loving-kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity. That person is unable to discern the meaning of this. Therefore, their wisdom is called incomplete.

Furthermore, they are unable to discern Buddha-nature. Buddha-nature is the Tathagata; the Tathagata is all the unique qualities; the unique qualities are liberation; liberation is nirvana; nirvana is the unique qualities.... They are unable to discern the meaning of this.

Therefore, their wisdom is called incomplete. Furthermore, they are unable to discern the Four Truths: suffering, its arising, its cessation, and the Path. Because they are unable to discern the Four Noble Truths, they do not know the noble practice.

Because they do not know the noble practice, they do not know the Tathagata. Because they do not know the Tathagata, they do not know liberation. Because they do not know liberation, they do not know nirvana.

Therefore, their wisdom is called incomplete.

Because that person does not possess these five qualities completely, there are two possibilities: first, the increase of wholesome dharmas; second, the increase of unwholesome dharmas. What is meant by the increase of unwholesome dharmas? That person does not perceive their own incompleteness but declares themselves complete and gives rise to attachment, regarding themselves as superior to their fellow practitioners.

Therefore, they associate with unwholesome companions like themselves. Having associated with them, they hear an incomplete Dharma. Upon hearing it, they rejoice, their minds become defiled by attachment, and arrogance arises in them.

They frequently behave heedlessly. Because of their heedlessness, they draw close to householders and delight in hearing discussions of household affairs, thus departing from the pure Dharma of renunciation. For this reason, unwholesome dharmas increase.

As unwholesome dharmas increase, they perform impure karma through body, speech, mind, and so forth. Because their three kinds of karma are impure, they increase the karmic results that lead to hell beings, animals, and hungry ghosts. This is called emerging briefly and then sinking again.

Who in my Buddha-Dharma are those who emerge briefly and then sink again? They are Devadatta, Bhiksu Cu Da Li, Bhiksu Uyen Thu, Bhiksu Thien Tinh, Bhiksu Chi Xa, Bhiksu Man Tuc, Bhiksuni Tu Dia, Bhiksuni Khoang Da, Bhiksuni Phuong, Bhiksuni Man, the elder Tinh Khiet, Upasaka Cau Huu, Xa Lac of the Sakya clan, the elder Tuong, Upasika Danh Xung, Upasika Quang Minh, Upasika Nan Da, Upasika Quan, Upasika Linh, and others.

Such persons are said to emerge briefly and then sink again, just as a great fish, seeing the light, rises to the surface but, because its body is heavy, sinks once more.

The second kind of person sees and knows deeply that his practice is incomplete. Because it is incomplete, he seeks to draw near to good spiritual friends. Having drawn near to good spiritual friends, he delights in asking about what he has not yet heard.

Having heard it, he delights in receiving and upholding it. Having received and upheld it, he delights in reflecting well upon it. Having reflected well upon it, he is able to abide in accordance with the Dharma.

Because he abides in accordance with the Dharma, his wholesome roots increase. Because his wholesome roots increase, he will certainly never sink again. This is called Abiding.

Who are such people within my Buddha-Dharma? They are Shariputra, Mahamaudgalyayana, Ajnata Kaundinya and the other five bhikshus; Yasha and the other five hundred bhikshus; the youth Anuruddha; Kashyapa, Mahakashyapa, Dashabala Kashyapa; the bhikshuni Gautami, the bhikshuni Ba Sac La Hoa, the bhikshuni Thắng, the bhikshuni Thật Nghĩa, the bhikshuni Ý, the bhikshuni Bạt Đà, the bhikshuni Tịnh, and the bhikshuni Bất Thoái Chuyển; King Bimbisara; the elder Ugra; the elder Sudatta; Shakya Mahanama; Poor Sudatta; the son of the elder Thủ Lang; the elder Danh Xưng; the elder Cụ Túc; General Simha; the elder Upali; the elder Đao (Dao); the upasika Vô Úy; the upasika Thiện Trụ; the upasika Ái Pháp; the upasika Dũng Kiện; the upasika Thiên Đắc; the upasika Thiện Sinh; the upasika Cụ Thân;

the upasika Ngưu Đắc; the upasika Khoáng Dã; the upasika Maha Tư Na; and others.

Such bhikshus, bhikshunis, upasakas, and upasikas are called those who abide. Why are they said to abide? Because they always delight in beholding the light of goodness.

For this reason, whether a Buddha appears in the world or does not appear in the world, such people will certainly commit no evil. This is called Abiding. Just as the Chỉ Di fish delights in seeing the light and neither becomes attached nor sinks, so too are the beings mentioned above.

Therefore, in the sutra I spoke this verse:

If one can skillfully discern the fruits

And wholeheartedly seeks to attain the fruits of the shramana,

If one can denounce every form of existence,

That person is called one who “abides in accordance with the Dharma.”

If one can make offerings to immeasurable Buddhas,

Then one has cultivated the Path for measureless lifetimes.

If one enjoys worldly pleasures without heedlessness,

That person is called one who “abides in accordance with the Dharma.”

Drawing near to good spiritual friends and hearing the true Dharma,

One inwardly reflects well and abides according to the Dharma;

Cultivating the Path and delighting in beholding the light,

One realizes liberation and abides securely.

THE MAHAPARINIRVANA SUTRA

– Fascicle Thirty-Two -