Toh 210The Noble Mahāyāna Sūtra “The Rice Seedling”

Summary

In this sūtra, at the request of venerable Śāriputra, the bodhisattva mahāsattva Maitreya elucidates a
very brief teaching on dependent arising that the Buddha had given earlier that day while gazing at a rice
seedling. The text discusses outer and inner causation and its conditions, describes in detail the twelvefold
cycle by which inner dependent arising gives rise to successive lives, and explains how understanding the very
nature of that process can lead to freedom from it.

Acknowledgements

This text was translated from the Tibetan, with comparison to Sanskrit editions, introduced, and
edited by the Dharmasāgara Translation Group: Raktrul Ngawang Kunga Rinpoche,
Rebecca Hufen, Jason Sanche, Arne Schelling and Sonam Spitz.

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

Introduction

The Rice Seedling (Śālistamba
)
is one of the most important sūtras on the topic of dependent arising. In this sūtra Śāriputra approaches
Maitreya and requests him to explain the meaning of the following statement of the Buddha, which he had
made earlier that same day while gazing at a rice seedling: “Whoever sees dependent arising sees the
Dharma. Whoever sees the Dharma sees the Buddha.” What follows is an explanation of dependent arising
through the twelve links, the eightfold path of the noble ones, and their relation to outer and inner
causes and conditions. Crucially, it is by understanding the very nature of dependent arising that one can
be free from it and attain enlightenment.

We are not aware of any extant complete Sanskrit text of The Rice
Seedling. However, it is quoted extensively in surviving Sanskrit treatises like Yaśomitra’s
Abhidharmakośavyākhyā, Candrakīrti’s Prasannapadā, Prajñākaramati’s Bodhicaryāvatārapañjikā,
Śāntideva’s Śikṣasamuccaya, and also a critical non-Buddhist treatise,
the Bhāmatī by Vācaspatimiśra. Mainly based on these, several Sanskrit
reconstructions have been carried out which are claimed to include about ninety percent of The Rice Seedling. The first reconstructed edition was prepared by Louis de La
Vallée Poussin (1913). Without having access to this, N. Ayaswami Sastri (1950) produced another
reconstruction. Another one was produced by V.V. Gokhale (1961). Finally, a thorough comparative study and
new reconstructed edition was carried out by N. Ross Reat (1993), taking into account Sanskrit, Tibetan,
Pāli, and Chinese sources; Reat also provides a complete English translation. This work also illustrates
the many parallel and similar passages in Pāli suttas.

There are three Indian commentaries on The Rice Seedling which have
been preserved in Tibetan and Mongolian translations, namely the Śālistamba[ka]ṭīkā
by
Kamalaśīla, as well as the Śālistamba[ka]mahāyanasūtraṭīkā
and Śālistambakakārikā
, both attributed to
Nāgarjuna. These works have been thoroughly studied and translated by Jeffrey D. Schoening (1995). He also
gives a chronological account of both partial and complete Western language translations of The Rice Seedling, the first being a translation from
the Chinese into Italian in 1908; and he mentions a Japanese translation from the Chinese of Taishō 709.

Most of the information given in this introduction can be found in more detail in the sources
mentioned above, especially Reat and Schoening. Being of such significance,
The Rice Seedling has also been discussed in the context of multiple
other studies, the details of which would go beyond the scope of this brief introduction.

There are four Chinese translations (Taishō 709–712), the first and earliest having been carried
out during the Eastern Jin Dynasty (317–420 ce). A very similar sūtra (Taishō
708) had already been translated by Chih-ch’ien in the Wu Dynasty (222–280 ce).
As Martin (2014, p. 283) has noted, the Testament of Wa / Ba (dba’ / sba bzhed) mentions that a Chinese
version was translated into Tibetan before the completion of the first monastery of Tibet, Samye, toward
the end of the eighth century. The Tibetan translation is also mentioned in the Denkarma (ldan dkar ma) catalogue compiled by Kawa Paltseg et al., probably in the
year 812. The colophons in two of the oldest surviving Tibetan manuscripts identified so far (the Dunhuang
manuscripts PT 551 and PT 552), credit Yeshé Dé, a famous Tibetan translator of the eighth to ninth
centuries, as the translator. This information is absent in the later editions.

There are considerable differences and variant readings across the many versions, editions, and
translations of this sūtra that are not recorded in detail here. Variant readings as well as references to
the commentaries are only given for passages that were crucial for essential decisions made with regard to
the translation. Thus this translation does not aim to improve on the studies mentioned above. Readers who
are interested in academic and philological research on the available textual sources may refer to them.
What is intended here is a translation that is mainly based on the Tibetan version in the Degé Kangyur
collection and the Pedurma (dpe bsdur ma)
comparative edition of the Kangyur, with reference to available Sanskrit materials, particularly Reat’s
edition.

The Translation

The Noble Mahāyāna Sūtra

The Rice Seedling

Homage to all buddhas and
bodhisattvas!

Thus did I hear at one time. The Bhagavān was residing on Vulture Peak mountain in Rājagṛha with a
large saṅgha of 1,250 bhikṣus and with a great many bodhisattva mahāsattvas. At that time, venerable
Śāriputra went to the place frequented by the bodhisattva mahāsattva Maitreya and, after they had
exchanged courtesies upon meeting each other, they both sat down on a flat rock.

Venerable Śāriputra then said to the bodhisattva mahāsattva Maitreya, “Maitreya, here today, the
Bhagavān, gazing at a rice seedling, spoke this aphorism to the bhikṣus:
‘Bhikṣus, whoever sees dependent arising sees the Dharma. Whoever sees the
Dharma sees the Buddha.’ Having said this, the Bhagavān fell silent. Maitreya, what is the meaning of this
aphorism spoken by the Sugata? What is dependent
arising? What is the Dharma? What is the Buddha? How does one see the Dharma by seeing dependent arising?
How does one see the Buddha by seeing the Dharma?”

The bodhisattva mahāsattva Maitreya then replied to the venerable Śāradvatīputra, “Venerable
Śāriputra, you want to know what dependent arising is in the statement made by the Bhagavān, the Lord of
Dharma, the Omniscient One: ‘Bhikṣus, whoever sees dependent arising sees the Dharma. Whoever sees the
Dharma sees the Buddha’? Well, the phrase dependent arising means that something
arises because something else already exists; something is born because something else was already
born. That is to say, ignorance
causes formations. Formations cause
consciousness. Consciousness causes name and form. Name and form cause the six sense sources. The six
sense sources cause contact. Contact causes sensation. Sensation causes craving. Craving causes
appropriation. Appropriation causes becoming. Becoming causes birth. And birth causes aging and death,
sorrow, lamentation, suffering, despair, and anxiety. Thus does this entire great heap of suffering
arise.

“When ignorance ceases, formations cease. When formations cease, consciousness ceases. When
consciousness ceases, name and form cease. When name and form cease, the six sense sources cease. When the
six sense sources cease, contact ceases. When contact ceases, sensation ceases. When sensation ceases,
craving ceases. When craving ceases, appropriation ceases. When appropriation ceases, becoming ceases.
When becoming ceases, birth ceases. And when birth ceases, aging and death, sorrow, lamentation,
suffering, despair, and anxiety cease. Thus does this entire great heap of suffering cease. This is what
the Bhagavān has called dependent arising.

“What is the Dharma? The Dharma is the eightfold path of the noble ones: right view, right
intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right
concentration. This eightfold path of the noble ones, combined with the attainment of its results and
nirvāṇa, is what the Bhagavān has called the Dharma.

“Who is the Bhagavān Buddha? A buddha, so-called because of comprehending all
dharmas, is endowed with the wisdom eye of the noble ones and the body of Dharma, and thus perceives the dharmas of those still in training and those beyond training.

“How does one see dependent arising? On this point the Bhagavān said, ‘One who sees dependent
arising as constant, without life
force, devoid of life force, true, unmistaken, unborn, not arisen, uncreated, uncompounded, unobstructed,
imperceptible, tranquil, fearless, incontrovertible, inexhaustible, and by nature never
stilled, and who likewise sees the Dharma to also be constant,
without life force, devoid of life force, true, unmistaken, unborn, not arisen, uncreated, uncompounded,
unobstructed, imperceptible, tranquil, fearless, incontrovertible, inexhaustible, and never stilled,
clearly understands the Dharma of the nobles ones, and by thus acquiring such right knowledge, sees the
Buddha, the body of the unsurpassable Dharma.’

“Why is it called dependent arising? It is called dependent arising because
it is causal and conditional, not non-causal and non-conditional. In this connection, the Bhagavān
concisely taught the characteristics of dependent arising as follows: ‘Results come from their own
specific conditions. Whether tathāgatas appear or not, this true nature of things will remain. It is the true nature; the constancy of Dharma; the immutability of Dharma, consistent with dependent arising,
suchness, unmistaken suchness, unchanging suchness, actuality, and truth; unmistaken; and unerring.’

“Moreover, dependent arising emerges from two principles. From what two principles? From a causal relation and a conditional
relation. Furthermore, it should be understood as twofold: outer and inner.

“What is the causal relation in outer dependent arising? It is as follows. From a seed comes a
sprout, from a sprout a leaf, from a leaf a stem, from a stem a pedicel, from a pedicel a pistil, from a
pistil a flower, and from a flower comes a fruit. If there is no seed, the sprout cannot arise and so on,
until finally, without the flower, the fruit cannot arise. If there is a seed, the sprout will form and so
on, until finally, if there is a flower, then the fruit will form.

“In that process, the seed does not think, ‘I form the sprout.’ Nor does the sprout think, ‘I am
formed by the seed.’ Likewise, the flower does not think, ‘I form the fruit.’ Nor does the fruit think, ‘I
am formed by the flower.’ Yet, if there is a seed, the sprout will take form and arise, and so on, until
finally, likewise, if there is a flower, the fruit will take form and arise. Thus is the causal relation
in outer dependent arising to be seen.

“So how is the conditional relation in outer dependent arising to be seen? As due to the coming
together of six elements. As due to the coming together of what six elements? Namely, conditional
dependent arising is to be seen as due to the coming together of the elements of earth, water, fire, wind,
space, and season. The earth element functions as the
support for the seed. The water element moistens the seed. The fire element ripens the seed. The wind
element opens the seed. The space element performs the function of not obstructing the seed. And season
transforms the seed. Without these conditions a sprout cannot form from a seed. But when the outer element of earth is not deficient, and
likewise water, fire, wind, space, and season are not deficient, then from the coming together of all
these factors, a sprout forms as the seed is ceasing.

“The earth element does not think, ‘I support the seed.’ Nor does the water element think, ‘I
moisten the seed.’ Nor does the fire element think, ‘I ripen the seed.’ Nor does the wind element think,
‘I open the seed.’ Nor does the space element think, ‘I make sure the seed is not obstructed.’ Nor does
the season think, ‘I transform the seed.’ Nor does the seed think, ‘I form the sprout.’ Nor does the
sprout think, ‘I am formed by these conditions.’ Yet when these conditions are present and the seed is
ceasing, the sprout forms. Likewise, when finally there is a flower, the fruit forms.

“The sprout is not created by itself, not created by another, not created by both, not created by
Īśvara, not transformed by time, not derived from prakṛti, and not born without any cause. Nevertheless, through
the coming together of the elements of earth, water, fire, wind, space, and season, the sprout forms as
the seed is ceasing.

“Thus is the conditional relation in outer dependent arising to be seen.

“Here, outer dependent arising is to be seen in terms of five aspects. What five aspects? As not
permanent, as not discontinuous, as not involving transmigration, as the production of a large result from
a small cause, and as a continuity of similar type.

“How is it not permanent? It is not permanent because the sprout and the seed are different. The
sprout is not the seed. The sprout does
not come from the seed after it has ceased, nor does it come from the seed while it has not yet
ceased. Rather, the sprout is born precisely as the
seed ceases.

“How is it not discontinuous? It is not discontinuous because a sprout is not born from a seed
that has already ceased, nor from a seed that has not yet ceased. Rather, like the beam of a scale tilting
from up to down, a sprout is born precisely when the seed has ceased.

“How does it not involve transmigration? It does not involve transmigration because the sprout and
the seed are different; that which is the sprout is not the seed.

“How does it entail the producing of a large result from a small cause? A large fruit is produced
from the planting of a small seed. Therefore, it entails the producing of a large result from a small
cause.

“Lastly, fruit is produced precisely according to the type of seed planted. Therefore, it involves
a continuity of similar type.

“Thus is outer dependent arising to be seen in terms of five aspects.

“Similarly, inner dependent arising also arises from two principles. From what two principles?
From a causal relation and a conditional relation.

“What, then, is the causal relation in inner dependent arising? It starts with ignorance causing
formations and so on, until finally, birth causes aging and death. If ignorance does not arise, then
formations do not manifest and so on, until finally, if birth does not arise, then aging and death do not
manifest. Likewise, from the existence of ignorance, formations occur and so on, until finally, from the
existence of birth, comes aging and death.

“Ignorance does not think, ‘I produce formations.’ Nor do formations think, ‘We are produced by
ignorance,’ and so on. Finally, birth does not think, ‘I produce aging and death.’ Nor do aging and death
think, ‘I am produced by birth.’ Nevertheless, formations take form and arise through the existence of ignorance and
so on, until finally aging and death take form and arise through the existence of birth.

“Thus is the causal relation in inner dependent arising to be seen.

“How is the conditional relation in inner dependent arising to be seen? As due to the coming
together of six elements. As due to the coming together of what six elements? Namely, the conditional
relation in inner dependent arising is to be seen as due to the coming together of the elements of earth,
water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness.

“Here, what is the earth element in inner dependent arising? That which assembles to form the
solidity of the body is called the earth element. That which provides cohesion in the body is called the
water element. That which digests whatever the body eats, drinks, chews, and tastes is called the fire
element. That which performs the function of the body’s inhalation and exhalation is called the wind
element. That which allows the body to have hollow spaces inside is called the space element. That which
produces the sprouts of name and form like reeds in a sheaf—the combination of
the five collections of consciousness, together with the defiled mental consciousness—is called the
consciousness element. Without these conditions the body cannot be born. But when the inner earth element
is not deficient, and likewise the elements of water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness are not
deficient, then from the coming together of all these factors, the body forms.

“In this process, the earth element does not think, ‘I provide the solidity of the body by
assembling.’ Nor does the water element think, ‘I provide cohesion for the body.’ Nor does the fire
element think, ‘I digest whatever the body eats, drinks, chews, or tastes.’ Nor does the wind element think, ‘I perform the function
of the body’s inhalation and exhalation.’ Nor does the space element think, ‘I create hollow spaces inside
the body.’ Nor does the element of consciousness think, ‘I produce the name and form of the body.’ Nor
does the body think, ‘I am produced by these conditions.’ Yet, when these conditions are present, the body
is born.

“The earth element is not a self, not a being, not a life force, not a creature, not a human, not
a person, not female, not male, not neuter, not me, not mine, and not anybody else’s.

“Similarly, the water element, the fire element, the wind element, the space element, and the
consciousness element are also not a self, not a being, not a life force, not a creature, not a human, not
a person, not female, not male, not neuter, not me, not mine, and not anybody else’s.

“Here, what is ignorance? That which perceives these same six elements to be
unitary, whole, permanent, constant, eternal, pleasurable, a self, a being, a life force, a creature, a
soul, a man, an individual, a human, a person, me, and mine, along with the many other such variations
of misapprehension, is called ignorance. The presence of such ignorance brings
desire, aversion, and delusion toward objects. Such desire, aversion, and delusion toward objects are the
formations caused by ignorance. That which distinguishes between individual objects is
consciousness. The four aggregates for appropriation that emerge in conjunction
with consciousness, [along with the aggregate of material form], are name and
form. The faculties based
on name and form are the six sense sources. The conjunction of the three factors is
contact. The experience of contact is sensation. Attachment
to sensation is craving. The intensification of craving is
appropriation. Action that comes from appropriation and causes rebirth is
becoming. The emergence of the aggregates from such a cause is
birth. The maturation of the aggregates after birth is
aging. The perishing of the decrepit aggregates is death. The
inner torment of the deluded, attached, dying person is sorrow. The utterance that
comes from sorrow is lamentation. The experience of discomfort associated with the
collection of the five consciousnesses is suffering. The mental suffering accompanied
by attention is despair.
Moreover, any other subtle defilements of this kind are called anxiety.

“They are called ignorance in the sense of obscuring,
formations in the sense of forming, consciousness in the
sense of knowing, name and form in the sense of mutual support, the six sense sources in the sense of entryways,
contact in the sense of contact, sensation in the sense of
experience, craving in the sense of thirst, appropriation in the
sense of appropriating, becoming in the sense of giving birth to repeated becoming,
birth in the sense of the emergence of the aggregates, aging
in the sense of the maturation of the aggregates, death in the sense of perishing,
sorrow in the sense of grieving, lamentation in the sense of
wailing, suffering in the sense of bodily torment, despair in
the sense of mental torment, and anxiety in the sense of subtle defilement.

“Furthermore, not knowing reality, in the sense of not apprehending it and misapprehending it, is
ignorance.

“If such an ignorance is present, three types of formations develop: those that lead to
meritorious states, those that lead to unmeritorious states, and those that lead to immovable states. This
is what is meant by ‘ignorance is the condition for formations.’

“From formations that lead to meritorious states comes consciousness that leads to meritorious
states. From formations that lead to unmeritorious states comes consciousness that leads to unmeritorious
states. And from formations that lead to immovable states comes consciousness that leads to immovable
states. This is what is meant by ‘formations are the conditions for consciousness.’

“The four immaterial aggregates—consciousness and those that arise together with it—as well as any
form, is what is meant by ‘consciousness is the condition for name and form.’

“Due to the development of name and form, the performance of actions through the entryways of the
six sense sources occurs. This is what is meant by ‘name and form are the conditions for the six sense
sources.’

“From the six sense sources arise the six collections of contact. This is what is meant by ‘the
six sense sources are the condition for contact.’

“Sensations occur precisely according to the type of contact that occurs. This is what is meant by
‘contact is the condition for sensation.’

“Relishing those different kinds of sensations, taking delight in them, clinging to them, and
having that clinging remain is what is meant by ‘sensation is the condition for craving.’

“From relishing, taking delight, clinging, and having that clinging remain comes an unwillingness
to let go, with the repeated wish: ‘May I never part from these dear and delightful forms!’ This
is what is meant by ‘craving is the condition for appropriation.’

“Such wishing gives rise to rebirth-producing actions by means of body, speech, and mind. This is
what is meant by ‘appropriation is the condition for becoming.’

“The formation of the five aggregates born from such actions is
what is meant by ‘becoming is the condition for birth.’

“The maturation of the development of the aggregates formed from birth, and their disintegration,
is what is meant by ‘birth is the condition for aging and death.’

“Thus, this twelvefold dependent arising —which comes from several different causes and from several different conditions, is
neither permanent nor impermanent, is
neither compounded nor uncompounded, is not without any cause or condition, is not an experiencer, and is not
something exhaustible, something destructible, or something that
ceases—has proceeded from time immemorial, without interruption, like the flow of a river.

“This twelvefold dependent arising—which comes from several different causes and from several
different conditions, is neither permanent nor impermanent, is neither compounded nor uncompounded, is not
without any cause or condition, is not an experiencer, and is not something exhaustible, something destructible, or something that ceases—has
indeed proceeded from time immemorial, without interruption, like the flow of a river. Nevertheless, there
are four links that serve as the cause for assembling this twelvefold dependent arising. What four links?
Namely, ignorance, craving, karma, and consciousness.

“Consciousness functions as a cause by having the nature of a seed. Karma functions as a cause by
having the nature of a field. Ignorance and craving function as causes by having the nature of
afflictions.

“Karma and afflictions cause the seed of consciousness to grow. Here, karma functions as the field
for the seed of consciousness. Craving moistens the seed of consciousness. Ignorance sows the seed of
consciousness. Without these conditions, the seed of consciousness does not develop.

“In this process, karma does not think, ‘I function as the field for the seed of consciousness.’
Nor does craving think, ‘I moisten the seed of consciousness.’ Nor does ignorance think, ‘I sow the seed
of consciousness.’ Nor does the seed of consciousness think, ‘I am produced by these conditions.’ Yet when
the seed of consciousness grows, planted in the field of karma, moistened by the water of craving, and
strewn with the manure of ignorance, the
sprout of name and form manifests within whichever mother’s womb one will take rebirth through.

“And this sprout of name and form is not created by itself, not created by another, not created by
both, not created by Īśvara, not transformed by time, not derived from prakṛti, not dependent on a single factor, and not born without any cause.
Nonetheless, from the combination of the union of the parents, the period of ovulation, and other
conditions, the seed of consciousness, filled with appetite, produces the sprout of name and form within
whichever mother’s womb one will take rebirth through. For although things are devoid of owner, devoid of ownership, ungraspable,
space-like, and their nature is the mark of illusion, there is no deficiency of requisite causes and
conditions.

“For instance, the eye consciousness arises by way of five principles. What five principles?
Namely, the eye consciousness arises based on the eye on which it depends, form, light, space, and the
appropriate attention. Here, the eye functions as the basis for the eye consciousness. Form functions as
the object of perception for the eye consciousness. Light functions as visibility. Space functions by not
obstructing. Appropriate attention functions as mental reflection. Without these conditions, the eye
consciousness cannot arise. But when the inner sense source, the eye, is not deficient, and
likewise, when form, light, space, and appropriate attention are not deficient, then from the coming
together of all these factors, the eye consciousness arises.

“The eye does not think, ‘I serve as the basis for the eye consciousness.’ Nor does form think, ‘I
serve as the object of perception for the eye consciousness.’ Nor does light think, ‘I function as the
visibility for the eye consciousness.’ Nor does space think, ‘I do not obstruct the eye consciousness.’
Nor does appropriate attention think, ‘I
provide mental reflection for the eye consciousness.’ Nor does the eye consciousness think, ‘I am produced
by these conditions.’ Yet, the eye consciousness is born from the presence of these conditions. Similarly,
a corresponding analysis should be applied to the rest of the faculties.

“Here, there is nothing whatsoever that
transmigrates from this existence to the next. And yet, because there is no deficiency of requisite causes
and conditions, the result of karma nonetheless manifests. It is like the appearance of the reflection of
a face on the surface of a well-polished mirror. The face has not shifted onto the surface of the mirror,
but because there is no deficiency of requisite causes and conditions, the face nonetheless appears there.

“Similarly, there is nobody at all who transmigrates from here after death and is born elsewhere.
And yet, because there is no deficiency of requisite causes and conditions, the result of karma
nonetheless manifests. It is like how the orb of the moon travels at a distance of forty-two thousand
yojanas above earth, and yet its reflection nonetheless appears in small vessels filled with water. It is
not that the moon moves from its position and enters the small vessels filled with water. Yet, because
there is no deficiency of requisite causes and conditions, the orb of the moon nonetheless appears
there.

“Likewise, that there is nobody at all who transmigrates from here after death and is born
elsewhere, and yet, because there is no deficiency of requisite causes and conditions, the result of karma
nonetheless manifests, is like how a fire ignites from the assemblage of its requisite causes and
conditions, and not when deficient of its requisite causes and conditions.

“In the same way, although things are devoid of owner,
devoid of ownership, ungraspable, space-like, and their nature is the mark of illusion, because there is
no deficiency of requisite causes and conditions, the seed of consciousness born of karma and afflictions
will nonetheless produce the sprout of name and form within whichever mother’s womb one will take rebirth
through.

“Thus is the conditional relation in inner dependent arising to be seen.

“Here, inner dependent arising is to be seen in terms of five aspects. What five aspects? As not permanent, as not discontinuous, as
not involving transmigration, as the production of a large result from a small cause, and as a continuity
of similar type.

“How is it not permanent? It is not permanent because the final aggregates at death are one thing
and those at birth are another; that is, the final aggregates at death are not the ones at birth. And yet,
only when the final aggregates at death cease do the aggregates at birth arise.

“How is it not discontinuous? It is not discontinuous because the aggregates at birth do not arise
from the final aggregates at death either when they have already ceased, or when they have not yet ceased.
Like the beam of a scale tilting from up to down, the aggregates at birth arise precisely when the final
aggregates at death have ceased.

“How does it not involve transmigration? It does not involve transmigration because beings from
different classes of existence bring about their rebirth in a common form of birth.

“How does it entail the production of a large result from a small cause? The ripening of a large
result is experienced from having performed a minor action. Thus, it entails the production of a large
result from a small cause.

“It involves a continuity of similar type because the ripening of an action is experienced
precisely according to the action performed.

“Venerable Śāriputra, whoever sees with perfect wisdom this dependent arising, perfectly taught by
the Bhagavān, as it actually is—as always and forever without
life force, devoid of life force, true, unmistaken, unborn, not arisen, uncreated, uncompounded,
unobstructed, imperceptible, tranquil, fearless, incontrovertible, inexhaustible, and by nature never
stilled—whoever fully and truly sees it as unreal, vain, hollow, unsubstantial, as a sickness, a boil, a thorn, as miserable, impermanent,
painful, empty, and self-less, such a person does not reflect on the past thinking, ‘Did I exist in the
past, or not? What was I in the past? How was I in the past?’ Nor does such a person reflect on the future
thinking, ‘Will I exist in the future, or not? What will I be in the future? How will I be in the future?’
Nor does such a person reflect on the present thinking, ‘What is this? How is this? Being what, what will we become? Where does this being come from? Where will it go
when transmigrating from here at death?’

“Whichever dogmas mendicants and brahmins hold throughout the world, whether they involve belief
in a self, belief in a being, belief in a life force, belief in a person, or belief in ceremonies and
festivities, such dogmas, prone to agitation and
dullness, are all abandoned at that time. Fully understood as false, these dogmas are
severed at the root and wither like the head of a palm tree, never
to arise or cease in the future.

“Venerable Śāriputra, whoever is endowed with such acceptance of the Dharma and thus perfectly
understands dependent arising is prophesied for unexcelled, perfect, and complete awakening by the
Tathāgata, the Arhat, the perfectly and completely awakened one, the one with perfect knowledge and
conduct, the Sugata, the knower of the world, the incomparable charioteer of those who need taming, the
teacher of gods and humans, the Bhagavān, the Buddha, in this way: ‘Such a person will become a perfect
and complete buddha!’ ”

After the bodhisattva mahāsattva Maitreya had thus spoken, venerable Śāriputra, together with the
world of gods, humans, asuras, and gandharvas, rejoiced and praised what the bodhisattva mahāsattva Maitreya had
taught.

This concludes the noble Mahāyāna sūtra, “The Rice
Seedling.”

Notes

Bibliography

Tibetan Sources

Sanskrit and Western Sources

collection

tshogs
ཚོགས།