T374 The Nirvana Sutra, Vol. I

Fascicle VII

Chapter Four

The Nature of the Tathāgata:

Part 4

At that time Kāśyapa addressed the Buddha, saying: "World-Honored One. The four types of people that the Buddha has been discussing, is it right to regard them as supports for us [in your absence]?" The Buddha said:

Just so, just so. Good man, as I explained, you should indeed rely on them as supports. Why? Because there are four māras. Why are there four? [The number] reflects those who effectively accept and embrace another set of sutras and vinayas that are taught by māras. 99

The bodhisattva Kāśyapa then asked the Buddha:

World-Honored One. This fourfold māra issue that the Buddha has explained—if there are teachings expounded by a māra and teachings expounded by a buddha, how am I to distinguish between them? [If] there are living beings who comply with the actions of māras as well as those who behave in accordance to what the Buddha has taught, how can we understand who is who?

The Buddha then informed Kāśyapa:

Over seven hundred years after my parinirvāṇathis Māra Pāpīyas will gradually bring about a collapse of my true-dharma. Like a hunter who dons the dharma robe of a monk, Māra Pāpīyas will take the form of a monk, a nun, a layman, or a laywomen. He may also transform himself into the body of someone at the stage of srotāpanna;he may transform himself into the body of an arhat or even take on the material body of a 201

The Nirvana Sutra, Volume I

403a

buddha. King Māra is thus able to take his contaminated form and turn it into an uncontaminated body in order to destroy the true-dharma. If this Māra Pāpīyas destroys the true-dharma, he will thereupon make this statement:

In the distant past the Bodhisattva descended to Kapilavastu from the Tuṣita Heaven to appear in the palace of King Śuddhodhana. Through the harmonious combination of the lustful passions of his mother and father, he was born and raised by them to become what he is. But if you say a person could be born into the world of humans who then becomes revered by great multitudes of humans and gods throughout the world, such a thing cannot be true. And he will also say:

In the distant past [the Bodhisattva] underwent many austerities, making various donations to people, such as giving away his head, his eyes, his body, his brain, his nation, his wife, or his children. And it was by means of doing these things that he completed the path to buddhahood. It was because of these [sacrifices] that he was revered by humans and gods, gandharvas, asuras, garuḍas, kiṃnaras, and mahoragas.

If you come across sutra or vinaya texts that expound these things, you should understand them all to be the work of Māra. Good man, you may also hear of sutras and vinayas that make statements like this: The Tathāgata Perfectly Awakened One has long since attained buddhahood. He appeared in this realm as one who accomplished the buddha path in order to save living beings. His birth through the sexual union of his mother and father accords with the ways of the world; such was how he manifested himself.

You should understand that sutras and vinayas that speak in this way express what has been actually taught by the Tathāgata. A person who acts in accordance with what is expounded by Māra is a follower of Māra. A person who acts in accordance with the sutras and vinayas expounded by the Buddha is a bodhisattva.

202

Fascicle VII

Someone may assert:

Though it is said that the Tathāgata at the time of his birth took seven steps in each of the ten directions, you should not believe this. This view reflects the teaching of Māra.

Someone else may assert:

At the time of his birth the Tathāgata took seven steps in each of the ten directions. This was the Tathāgata expediently manifesting himself.

This view reflects what indeed has been expounded by the Tathāgata in the sutras and vinayas. A person who acts in accordance with what Māra teaches is a follower of Māra. A person who can act in accordance with what the Buddha teaches is a bodhisattva. Someone may say,

After the bodhisattva was born, his father the king had him carried to temples. After gazing upon him the gods in these temples all descended to express their reverence. This is why he is called "buddha.

"

But there may also be criticism of this statement: If the gods appeared first and the Buddha came later, then why would the gods revere the Buddha?

Understand that such criticism is none other than that of Māra Pāpīyas. Someone else may say:

When the Buddha went to these temples, Maheśvara, Mahābrahmā, Śakra Devānām Indra, and the other gods all placed their palms together and bowed down to his feet in respect. Thus is it described in the sutras and vinayas expounded by the Buddha. If someone acts in accordance with what Māra says, that person will be a follower of Māra. But it is a bodhisattva who effectively acts in accordance with what is taught by the Buddha. Now if there is a sutra or vinaya that states: 403b

203

The Nirvana Sutra, Volume I

When the Bodhisattva was a prince he searched here and there for a wife motivated by lust. When he remained deep inside the palace, he was seeking pleasure and enjoyment by indulging himself in his five senses.

Know that any sutra or vinaya with words like these would have been taught by Māra Pāpīyas. But if it is explained that The Bodhisattva has long since abandoned any form of lust or intimacy with his wife and child. This extends even to his refusal of the exalted pleasures of the five senses afforded in the Trāyastriṃśa Heaven, which he tossed aside like tears or saliva. How could he have interest in normal human desires? Did he not shave his head and leave home in order to pursue the path?

Sutras and vinayas with words like this contain the expositions of the Buddha. If one acts in accordance with Māra's sutras or vinayas, he will be a follower of Māra. But acting in accordance with the Buddha's sutras or vinayas means that person is a bodhisattva.

Someone may say:

When the Buddha was at the monastery donated by Prince Jeta in Śrāvastī, he assented to the monks accepting and keeping female or male slaves, oxen, sheep, elephants, horses, asses, mules, chickens, boars, cats, dogs, gold, silver, lapis lazuli, pearls, crystal, agate, carnelian, coral, amber, white agate, jade, cauldrons made of bronze, and copper bowls or basins as part of their daily necessities. Cultivating fields to grow crops, selling things in markets, stocking grains and rice, and various activities of this nature—because of his great compassion they were all permitted by the Buddha in his sympathy for living beings.

But any sutra or vinaya with that kind of message is a discourse of Māra. On the other hand, if someone were to speak like this: When the Buddha was residing at the monastery donated by Prince Jeta in Śrāvastī, [he walked to] where *Nālijaṅgha100 lived. On that occasion the Tathāgata spoke with King Prasenajit and this brahman, also known as the Ram of Dignity,

101 saying:

204

Fascicle VII

Bhikṣus should not accept or keep gold or silver, lapis lazuli, crystal, pearls, agate, carnelian, coral, amber, white agate, jade, slaves, servants, young girls, young boys, oxen or sheep, elephants or horses, asses or mules, chickens or boars, cats or dogs or any other animals, cauldrons made of bronze, copper bowls and basins, any variety of colored carpet or floor covering, or bedding materials, or any other material necessities for the home. They should not be involved in cultivating fields to grow crops, selling things in markets, preparing food with their own hands or polishing it or pounding it by themselves, healing the body with spells, various means of training hawks, gazing up to contemplate the stars and their constellations, engaging in the astronomy of moon cycles, divining the gender [of a child yet to be born], determining whether someone's dream is auspicious or inauspicious, judging the sixtyfour artistic skills people have in order to determine which are or are not masculine or feminine, or engaging in the eighteen spells and various other devices that deceive people. They should not be talking about the innumerable facts of mundane life, powdered incense, stick incense, incense used for smearing on the skin, incense used for perfuming, the varieties of flower garlands, the techniques of arranging hair, deceit, flattery, or insatiable greed. They should not take pleasure in crowds and confusion, entertain by means of parties or amusing speech, indulge in [eating] the flesh of fish, mix poisonous chemicals, press fragrant oils, hold decorated umbrellas, or use leather shoes. They should not make fans, containers, or boxes, or create different forms of painting or sculpture, or store grains, rice, millet, beans, or fruit. They should not approach kings, princes, ministers, or women; they should neither laugh in a loud voice nor insist on remaining silent, or give way to frequent doubt about the teachings, nor should they go on and on talking frivolously about how long, how attractive, or how good something is, nor should they favor wearing beautiful clothes. Those involved in any of these various impure things will praise themselves before a donor. They will go out to places that are impure, where there is drinking, prostitution, and gambling. Anyonelike 205

403c

The Nirvana Sutra, Volume I

this I no longer permit to reside among the bhikṣus. They must resign the path, return to lay status, and take up work. Just like weeds [in a field under cultivation], they must all be eliminated [from the sangha], without exception.

You should understand that sutras and vinayas where you find rules that bar things such as these all reflect what has been [genuinely] uttered by the Tathāgata. When one acts in accordance with sutras and vinayas that have been uttered by a māra,one will be a follower of Māra. But one who acts in accordance with what has been said by a buddhais a bodhisattva. If it is said that:

The bodhisattva entered shrines in order to make offerings to deities, namely, Brahmā, Maheśvara, Skanda, and Kātyāyana. 102 But his

purpose for doing so was to subjugate those deities and their followers. To say otherwise is untenable. Or, if it is said that:

The Bodhisattva is unable to enter into discussions about the erroneous theories of heretics since he is unfamiliar with their observances, literature, or art. When slaves are in conflict, he is unable to restore harmony among them. He is not held in high esteem by sovereigns or ministers, whether male or female. And he does not know how to blend medicines. It is precisely because he does not know these things that he is called a "tathāgata. "103 And someone

who does know these things is considered a heretic [by the Buddha]. At the same time it is also said that in situations of others bearing resentment or affection toward him, the mind of a tathāgata is equanimous, he is indifferent to being cut with a sword or to having his body smeared with fragrance, as he has no sense of profitable gain or harmful loss toward either. It is precisely because he dwells in the world [in this manner] that he is known as a "tathāgata. "

You should understand any sutra or vinaya discourse that professes sentiments like these reflects what has been expounded by Māra. By contrast, you may hear someone say:

206

Fascicle VII

The Bodhisattva has shown himself entering the shrines of certain deities and going forth to cultivate the path of other dharmas. He has made plain his understanding of the observances and ceremonies practiced [within those faiths], he has grasped the import of their literature and their art, and he has shown himself entering the writing schools and performance spaces [of those of other faiths]. The Bodhisattva has skillfully resolved conflicts among slaves. Among the great mass of people—whether they are boys, girls, women of the imperial harem, queens from the imperial household, townsmen or country people, householders, brahmans, kings, ministers, or the multitudes of the poor—no one has been more honored than the Bodhisattva and he is respected uniformly by everyone. He shows himself doing these things, but although he is indeed there doing what he is seen to do, he has no affectionate attachment to any of it. Like a lotus flower, he is unaffected by mud. It is for the purpose of delivering living beings that he skillfully acts in these expedient ways, complying with how the world works.

If you come across any sutra or vinaya with statements like this, know that it reflects what the Tathāgata said. If someone accords with the words of a māra, that person will be a follower of Māra. If someone accords with the words of the Buddha, that person will be a great bodhisattva. You may also hear this said: When the Tathāgata expounded the sutras and vinayas for us, within the dharma regarding bad behavior, there were offenses of various degrees of gravity, as well as the sthūlātyayatransgressions, 104 all

of which are of a serious nature. Yet within our vinaya, we ultimately decided not to take things in that way. I may have patiently endured dharmas like this for some time but if you did not believe in these teachings, would I take the position that "I will abandon my own vinaya to follow yours"? The vinaya you have was preached by Māra. Our sutras and vinayas are admonitions laid down by the Buddha. The Buddha first expounded the ninefold [teachings with the authority] of the dharma seal, and these nine seals authorize our sutras and vinayas.

105 In the beginning one did not hear one

207

404a

The Nirvana Sutra, Volume I

sentence, even one word, of any well-balanced sutras preached by the Tathāgata. In all the innumerable sutras and vinayas, where are these well-balanced sutras expounded? Thus within [our canon] one never hears of a "tenfold" group of scriptures. The existence of this kind of thing should be understood as undoubtedly the work of Devadatta. Devadatta is an evil man who created the well-balanced sutras in his effort to destroy the good dharma. We do not believe in sutras of that type.

A statement like this would have been uttered by a māra. Why? Because this way of thinking shatters the sense of propriety inherent in the buddhadharma itself. It is a way of speaking in which people will say: That may be so in your sutras, but it is not in our sutras. The contents of our sutras and vinayas are the words of the Tathāgata, [but yours must originate elsewhere]. When [the Buddha said] "after my nirvāṇa a corrupted world will contain improper sutras and vinayas, " he

was referring to the well-balanced Mahāyāna sutras. In the future, the world will have corrupt bhikṣus [who think] like this. So I declare, moreover, that the well-balanced sutras surpass the ninefold canon of scriptures. You should recognize anyone who is able to grasp their meaning as a person who correctly grasps [all] sutras and vinayas, as a person who distances himself from all impurities, and as a person as glorious and pure as the full moon.

Now you may also encounter someone who claims this: Although within each sutra and vinaya the Tathāgata expounded a plethora of meanings as numerous as grains of sand in the Ganges River, it goes without saying that whatever is not in our vinaya is not [a genuine doctrine]. For if it were [genuine], then why would the Tathāgata have not have explained it in the context of our vinaya? For this reason I am not in a position to accept [these Mahāyāna scriptures]. You should recognize this person as one who has thus committed an offense. That person may also say,

208

Fascicle VII

I will embrace sutras and vinayas like this. Why? Because in doing so I create a wholesome dharma that becomes the cause by which I will know the contentment of reducing desires, I will cut off my defilements, and I will realize wisdom and nirvāṇa. One who talks like this is not a disciple of mine. But if someone were to say,

"The Tathāgata expounded the well-balanced sutras in order to bring deliverance to living beings,

" thisperson you should recognize as

my true disciple.

106 If someone does not accept the well-balanced sutras, understand that a person in that position could not be my disciple, for they have not gone forth in the Buddha's dharma but instead would be a disciple of heretics holding erroneous views. Sutras and vinayas that are [well balanced] like this are those that were expounded by the Buddha. Discourses that are not like this are those that were expounded by a māra, and anyone who follows what has been expounded by a māra is of the assembly of Māra. But it is a bodhisattva who follows what has been expounded by the Buddha.

In addition, good man, you may also hear someone say: The Tathāgata is not one who has accomplished immeasurable virtue. He is impermanent; he changes. By attaining the dharma of emptiness he has been disseminating [the notion of] nonself, but this does not accord with how the world is.

Sutras or vinaya like that are to be known as māra utterances. But if there is someone who claims this:

The Tathāgata's awakening is beyond conception. Moreover, this has been accomplished by means of the virtue accrued over countless asaṃkhyeya kalpas, and this is why he abides permanently without change.

[Know that] sutras and vinayas such as this reflect what was uttered by the Buddha. If one acts in accordance with that which is preached by māras, this then places that individual among the followers of māras, but to act in accordance what has been preached by buddhas is to be a bodhisattva.

209

404b

The Nirvana Sutra, Volume I

You will also hear this said:

There may be a bhikṣuwho has not actually committed a pārājika offense but a group of people nevertheless claims that he has done so and is [as guilty] as if he had cut down a tālatree. 107

Thus may a bhikṣube [so accused], despite the fact that he committed no violation. What is this about?

I have always said,

"To commit even one of the four pārājikaoffenses

would be like splitting a stone: it cannot be made whole again. " If someone comes forth to admit having overstated his own religious achievements, that offense I would call pārājika.Why? Because when someone pretends to have attained something that he has not, he has lost his sense of social responsibility, and this is to be known as pārājika. But there is also the story of a particular bhikṣuwho was satisfied with few desires, pure in maintaining precepts, and resided in a place of empty quietude. When the king and his ministers happened upon him, they looked at him and thought he must have attained arhatship. So they went before him to offer praise, respect, and make obeisance, and said, "Great teachers

such as yourself attain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhiafter relinguishing their bodies.

"

When the bhikṣuheard this, he responded to the king by saying, The truth is that I have not attained even the fruit of the path of a novice. O king, do not praise me for having accomplished the path. I beseech you, great king, do not speak of a dharma that is only discontent to me. By "discontent" I am referring to your mention of my attainment of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi,which everyone accepts in silence, but were I to accept this statement of attainment in silence now, it would incur the reproach of the buddhas. To course in contentment based in understanding is to be praised by the buddhas, so I intend to joyfully cultivate this throughout my entire life. Yet to know such contentment is to be aware that I myself have definitely not attained the fruit of the path. The king has praised my accomplishments but at the moment I cannot accept this, which is why it is called "contentment based in understanding.

"

210

Fascicle VII

The king then answered him: "Master, you have truly attained the fruit of arhatship; you are no different from a buddha. "

Thereafter the king spoke widely of this monk to people both inside and outside his kingdom, even telling his wives and consorts, so that everyone would know that he had attained the śrāmaṇerapath. As a result, this led everyone who heard about him to regard him with a sense of trust, reverence, and deep respect. And in his own way, this bhikṣu truly was someone pure in his religious practice. This causal chain of events broadly enabled others to obtain great blessings as well, so [despite the false declaration of his attainment,] this bhikṣuwas certainly not guilty of having committed the pārājikaoffense [of overstating his religious achievements]. The reason is that the person facing him joyously praised and venerated the monk of his own accord, unprompted. What violation could thus have been committed by a monk like this? For someone to claim this man to be guilty of a precept violation like I mentioned earlier tells you that whatever sutra [is used for this judgment] could only have been expounded by a māra.

Now consider another bhikṣuwho, in preaching from the Profound Scrip ture of the Buddha

'

s Hidden Treasury(*Tathāgatagarbha-sūtra),

said:108

All living beings possess buddha-nature, and it is because of this nature that they cut off the countless billions of the fetters caused by the defilements, thereby attaining anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi. The only exceptions are the icchantikas.

When the king and his ministers then asked:

Bhikṣu,will you become a buddha or not? Do you have buddhanature or not? The bhikṣuanswered:

Within my current body buddha-nature is definitely present. Whether or not I attain buddhahood is something yet to be determined. The king said,

"Venerable sir, if one thus does not become an icchantika, does that mean one will surely attain buddhahood?" 211

404c

The Nirvana Sutra, Volume I

The monk replied,

"Yes, it is truly as the king says.

"

So although this person declared that he definitely possessed buddhanature, in his case he too did not commit the pārājikaoffense [of overstating his religious achievements]. There was also a bhikṣuwho, at the time of his ordination, thought to himself,

"Without fail I will definitely attain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi. "

Someone like this may not have attained the highest path, but the merit he has already attained is immeasurable and without limit in a way that cannot be put into words. If someone were to claim that [by thinking in this way] this man commits the pārājikaoffense [of overstating his religious achievements], then it would mean that no bhikṣuwould ever be innocent of this charge. Why do I say this? Because over the last eight billion kalpas, I have always separated myself from all things impure, been content with few desires, accomplished the proper comportment, and diligently cultivated the unsurpassed tathāgatagarbha. And I knew for certain, by myself, that in my body I possessed buddha-nature.For that reason,

"attaining anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi" is attaining what I now call "the great compassion of a buddha.

" Sutras and vinayas that

contain ideas like this are the discourses of the Buddha. Those who are unable to follow them are followers of Māra. Those who are able to follow them are great bodhisattvas. There are also those who say:

There is no such thing as the four pārājikatransgressions, the thirteen saṃghāvaśeṣaviolations that bring suspension and require adjudication, the two indeterminate violations, the thirty offenses regarding personal property, the ninety-one offenses removed by ritual confession, the teaching of the fourfold repentance, the manifold areas of behavior requiring personal study, the seven rules for resolving conflicts within the sangha, and so forth. The sthūlātyayatransgressions showing gross criminal intent and the five heinous crimes do not exist, nor are there any icchantikas. If there are monks who fall into the hells [in their next rebirth] by committing these types of offenses, then people of other faiths are all reborn in the heavens. Why? Because people following other paths do not have precepts 212

Fascicle VII

that can be violated like this. Therefore [we know that] the Tathāgata expounds these precepts just to create fear in people. Or, if one says that the Buddha preached that: When my bhikṣus want to engage in sexual activity they should remove their dharma vestments and put on secular clothing; then and only then should they indulge in sex.

That should make you rethink [statements such as this]: The consequence of sexual activity is not a transgression for me. While the Tathāgata was in the world there were bhikṣus who repeatedly engaged in sexual activity and yet obtained true liberation. When their lives came to an end, they were reborn in the heavens. There have been people like this in the past and there are people like this in the present; I am not the only person to do this. So even if one commits a violation of one of the four grave pārājikaoffenses or five heinous crimes, or engages in any kind of impure ritual, that person can still attain genuine liberation. And although the Tathāgata did say,

"Committing a minor duṣkṛtaviolation [results in] falling into a hell for eight million years, measuring time as it passes in the Trāyastriṃśa Heaven,

"109 this was just the Tathāgata manifesting

himself for the purpose of instilling fear in people. After all, some people say,

"There is no distinction between the severity of pārājika and duṣkṛtaoffenses.

"

These vinaya masters falsely claim that their statements reflect rules enunciated by the Buddha. Surely you will understand that these ideas do not reflect anything expounded by the Buddha. Statements like these come from the sutras and vinayas of Māra.

You may also hear it explained that:

Among the various precepts, if you violate even a small one, even something minute, the unpleasant karmic consequences will be beyond measure. Thus we understand the importance of protecting ourselves like a tortoise that hides his six appendages. 213

405a

The Nirvana Sutra, Volume I

Similarly, you may encounter a vinaya master who makes the claim that "all precept violations are without karmic repercussions. " You should

avoid getting close to someone like this. For the Buddha has said: Transgressing even a single dharma [in silence],

I regard as deceitful speech.

Your next life may not be visible to you

But it will not be formed without bad [karmic fruit]. Therefore you should not get close to such people. Thus is the purity within my Buddha's dharma, and how much more apparent this is for those who commit the serious offenses of sthūlātyaya, saṃghāvaśeṣa, or pārājikaand then deny they are transgressions! Therefore you should take seriously the need to guard against dharmas like those [coming from irresponsible sources]. If you do not protect [this edifice], will there be anything to whatever dharma I have labeled a "prohibition"? As I have explained in the sutras, anyone who commits a violation of anything from the pārājikas down to the fine points of duṣkṛtawill indeed face hardship.

110

If living beings do not uphold the ordinances and observances, how will they be able to see the buddha-nature? Although all living beings possess buddha-nature, they have to maintain morality; only then will they see it. And it is by means of seeing buddha-nature that one attains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi.The ninefold canon does not contain the wellbalanced sutras, and that is why there is no exposition on the existence of buddha-nature to be found within it. But though this is not expounded in those sutras, you should recognize that it truly exists. If someone speaks to this point, you should recognize that person as a true disciple of mine. The bodhisattva Kāśyapa then addressed the Buddha, saying: World-Honored One, you have just explained that all living beings possess buddha-nature. But as we never hear of this in the ninefold canon, would we not be committing a serious pārājikaoffense by preaching this? The Buddha said:

Good man, in fact there will be no pārājikaviolation if you explain it just as you have done. Good man, this is analogous to someone claimingthe 214

Fascicle VII

ocean contains only seven kinds of jewels and not eight, for that person commits no precept violation. If someone were to say that throughout our ninefold canon there is no reference to buddha-nature, this person would also commit no precept violation. Why do I say this? Because it is [only] in the ocean of wisdom that is the Mahāyāna that I expound the existence of buddha-nature. But this is something that is not perceived by those of the two vehicles, so therefore if they preach that it does not exist, they are not at fault. A realm such as this is known by buddhas; it is not included in the furthest reaches of the knowledge held by śrāvakas or pratyekabuddhas.

Good man, if people have never heard of the profound, hidden tathāgata treasury, how could they be aware of the existence of buddha-nature? What is it that I am calling "a hidden treasury"? I am talking about the well-balanced Mahāyāna scriptures themselves. Good man, there are other paths: some expound a self that is permanent, some expound a self that is cut off permanently [at death]. The Tathāgata is not like them. In affirming both self and nonself, I call it "the middle path. " One way of

explaining this is that the Buddha expounds a middle path in which all living beings possess buddha-nature, but because it is obscured by the defilements they do not understand it and do not see it. Therefore you must diligently cultivate whatever expedient means you can in order to destroy those defilements. Know that the person who effectively states things in this way will not be guilty of any of the four grave offenses. To not effectively state things in this way I declare to be guilty of a pārājikaoffense.

You may encounter someone who says:

I have already attained anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi.Why? Because I possess buddha-nature. Those who possess buddha-nature will definitely attain unsurpassed perfect enlightenment without fail. So by this reasoning, I have already attained awakening (bodhi). You should recognize this person as having committed what I consider a pārājikaoffense. Why? Although one may havebuddha-nature, without cultivating one's understanding of skillful means one will therefore not seeit. And never having seen it, one simply cannot attain anuttarā 215

405b

The Nirvana Sutra, Volume I

405c

samyaksaṃbodhi.Good man, understand the implications here: the Buddha's dharma is exceedingly profound; it is inconceivable. The bodhisattva Kāśyapa then addressed the Buddha again and asked: World-Honored One, there is a king who has asked: "When can we say a bhikṣuhas fallen into the transgression of overstating his religious achievements?"

The Buddha said to Kāśyapa:

If a bhikṣuengages in flattery, guile, or false sanctity for purposes of personal gain, even just for food or drink, he will [be thinking]: How can I get people in society to think that I am indeed a genuine almsbeggar [with religious intent]? How could I use that situation to enable me to obtain fortune and fame?

Bhikṣus such as these suffer from serious delusion. Throughout the long night they will be continually thinking,

The truth is that I will never attain the fruit of any of the four paths of a śramaṇa,so what can I do to get people in society to say that I have? How can I get all the laymen and laywomen to point to me and say: "That is man replete with merit, a true saint. "

This kind of thinking reflects one who seeks profit solely for himself; he is not devoted to the dharma. When people pass by him or go in and out of his vicinity, they halt and look at him closely, seeing how he holds his robe and almsbegging bowl without breaking the rules of deportment, how he sits in a solitary place just like an arhat. This sight may cause worldly people all to remark,

"Bhikṣus like that are the best of the lot.

They diligently pursue austere practices, cultivating a dharma of tranquility. " [While the monk thinks:]

With a situation like this, I could end up with a big gain in the number of disciples who follow me. They will bring me offerings, clothing, food and drink, furniture, and medicine. It will also mean I can get many women to love and respect me.

216

Fascicle VII

If you [encounter] a bhikṣuor bhikṣuṇīwho engages in something like this, this is someone who has fallen into the transgression of overstating his religious achievements.

There are also bhikṣus who reside in an empty, quiet place because they seek to make the unsurpassed, true-dharma more prominent. They are not arhats, yet they want others to remark,

"That is an arhat, that is

a good bhikṣu,that is a skillful bhikṣu,that is a tranquil bhikṣu, " in order

to get countless numbers of people to develop faith. By means of this opportunity, they [think]:

I could obtain countless bhikṣus who would make up an assembly. And by obtaining the teachings, precept-violating monks and laymen could be brought to successfully keep the precepts, which then becomes an opportunity to promote the true-dharma, honoring what is most important to the Tathāgata, elucidating the transformative nature of the well-balanced Mahāyāna dharma, liberating innumerable living beings, and gaining a good grasp of the relative significance of what is expounded by the Tathāgata in the sutras and vinayas.

They will also say:

Now I also have buddha-nature. There is a sutra called Tathāgatagarbha,which states that I will accomplish the buddha path without fail, completely eliminating the untold millions of defilements [within myself].

And in speaking more generally to laymen:

All of you, without exception, have buddha-nature. You and I together are well situated in the foundation of the Tathāgata, on which we will attain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi,eliminating the untold millions of defilements.

Those who speak like this I would not call people who have fallen into overstating their religious achievements; I call them bodhisattvas. As I mentioned, committing a minor duṣkṛtaviolation means suffering the karmic retribution of falling into a hell for eight million years, 217

The Nirvana Sutra, Volume I

406a

measuring time as it passes in the Trāyastriṃśa Heaven, so what would the more serious sthūlātyayaviolation entail? In the Mahāyāna if there are bhikṣus who commit sthūlātyayatransgressions, you should not get close to them, but what would I call a sthūlātyayatransgression within the purview of the Mahāyāna? If, for example, a layperson of distinction builds a Buddhist monastery and adorns it with flower garlands as an offering to the Buddha, and then a bhikṣuwho sees the string running through the flower garland, without asking, abruptly pulls it out [and thereby ruins the garland], that would be a sthūlātyayaviolation. Whether [the individual] understands the nature of what he has done or not, it is still a transgression. Or if someone driven by vehement desire was to smash a Buddhist stupa, that would constitute a sthūlātyayaviolation. You should not get close to people who act like this. Consider this. A king and his ministers come across a decaying stupa. Wanting to repair it as an offering to its relics, they enter into the stupa and there discover a rare gem, which they then entrust to a resident bhikṣu. But the bhikṣu,upon obtaining the jewel, feels free to use it for himself. A bhikṣuwho reacts like this I call "someone impure who often foments conflict.

" A good layman should neither get close to such a person,nor make any offerings to him, nor pay him any respect. A bhikṣulike this may be someone known to be "without any sexual faculty,

" or "of two sexual faculties,

" or "of indeterminate sexual faculty.

"

For someone of indeterminate sexual faculty, when they feel lust for a woman their body thereupon becomes feminine, and when they feel lust for a man their body thereupon becomes masculine. A bhikṣulike this is known for having a problematic sexual faculty; I do not call this person male, I do not call this person female, I do not call this person a renunciant, and I do not call this person a lay follower either. You should not become close to bhikṣus like this, give them offerings, or respect them. 111

Within the Buddha's dharma, the dharma for śramaṇas teaches that one should foster compassion, nurturing living beings even as small as a black ant. One should also promote fearlessness. In this śramaṇa dharma there is abstinence from the consumption of alcohol and the enjoyment of fragrant smells. This śramaṇadharma does not abide lying or even the imagined telling of lies in dreams. This śramaṇadharma 218

Fascicle VII

does not produce a mind filled with desires and even in a dream state it is no different. Such is the dharma for śramaṇas.

The bodhisattva Kāśyapa then addressed the Buddha, saying: "World-Honored One, if a bhikṣuengages in sexual activity while dreaming, is this a violation of the precepts or not?"

The Buddha answered:

It is not. Nevertheless he should take in the unpleasant smell produced from sexual desire and engage in a meditation on purity wherein not even one thought of [sexual desire] arises, and a meditation on abstaining from the defilement of affectionate attachment to women. If one dreams of engaging in sex, upon awakening one should feel regret. When a bhikṣu[who is troubled by sexual desire] receives an offering while begging for food, he should eat thinking of the food as the flesh of a child in a world that is starving. If he continues to have lustful desires he should immediately free himself from such thoughts [as soon as they arise]. Teachings of this kind you should know to be precisely what the Buddha has expounded in the sutras and vinayas. One who accords with what a māra has taught will be a follower of Māra. One who accords with what the Buddha has taught I call "bodhisattva. "

You may also hear someone say:

The Buddha allows his bhikṣus to hold one leg in the air and remain silent, to jump into an abyss, to lay down upon fire, to let oneself fall from a cliff, to remain in painful circumstances, to take poison, to fast, to lie face down in ashes, to bind their own hands and feet, to kill living beings, to practice geomancy, and to cast spells. The children of caṇḍālas, people without any sexual faculty, people with two sexual faculties, people with indeterminate sexual faculty, or people whose faculties are incomplete, are all permitted to take the tonsure and follow the Buddhist path.

This I call an exposition of Māra.

[You may hear] that the Buddha at first allowed the eating of the five flavors derived from [the milk of] cows, as well as oil and honey, and he also allowed the wearing of kauśeyasilk robes and leather shoes. But 219

The Nirvana Sutra, Volume I

406b

aside from this, there are those who say that he permits the wearing of mahārāṅkavawool garments,

112that the stockpiling of seeds of any kind

[by the sangha] is allowed, that [he recognizes] all things categorized as grasses and trees as having individual life spans, or that after the Buddha finishes this discourse he will enter nirvāṇa. If you come across any sutras or vinayas that expound doctrines like these, you should know them to have been uttered by a māra.

I do not allow the continuous holding of one leg in the air. For the sake of the dharma, I do permit people to practice walking, standing still, sitting, or lying down. But I do not allow the taking of poison, fasting, the burning of any of the body's five appendages, the binding of hands and feet, the killing of living beings, the practice of geomancy, the casting of spells, the adornment of leather shoes with mother-ofpearl or ivory, the storing of seeds, the idea that grasses and trees have individual life spans, or the wearing of mahārāṅkavawool. If someone claims that the World-Honored One preaches in favor of these things, you should understand that such a person is a follower of a heretical path—he is not a disciple of mine. But I do allow the eating of the five flavors derived from [the milk of] cows, as well as oil and honey. And I do permit the wearing of leather shoes and the kauśeyasilk robes. I have stated that the four basic elements of earth, water, fire, and wind do not have a life span [in the usual sense]. Any sutras or vinayas that expound things in this way I would call sermons of the Buddha, and anyone who is in accordance with these sermons should be recognized as a true disciple of mine. Anyone who is not in accordance with what the Buddha has uttered is a follower of Māra. Anyone who follows the Buddha sutras or vinayas should be regarded as a great bodhisattva. Good man, I have now related in some detail the difference between that which characterizes what is said by the Buddha and what is said by Māra.

Kāśyapa then said to the Buddha:

World-Honored One, now for the first time I understand the distinction between what māras preach and what buddhas preach. As a result, I feel that I am able to enter into the deep significance of the Buddha's dharma. 220

Fascicle VII

The Buddha praised Kāśyapa, saying:

Excellent! Excellent! Good man, I see that this distinction has been clarified for you. This I call wise. Good man, what is commonly known as "suffering" or *duḥkhadoes not refer to the so-called [First] Noble Truth. Why is this? Because if the usual use of "suffering" referred to the "noble truth of suffering, " it

would mean that all cows, sheep, mules, horses, and even beings in hell would have "noble truths.

" Good man, if someone did not understand

that the profound realm of a tathāgata is that of a subtle and mysterious dharma body in which he abides permanently and immutably, that person might say "he has a body that eats, not a dharma body. " Such a person

does not understand either the virtue or the majesty of the Tathāgata. This is what I call "suffering.

" Why? Because it is out of ignorance that

a person regards what is proper (dharma) as what is improper (adharma), and regards what is improper as proper. It should be understood that whoever [makes mistakes] like this will surely fall into one of the unfortunate realms as they transmigrate through saṃsāra. This will only increase their bonds to the cycle of rebirth, and they will have to endure many hardships. When, on the other hand, one is able to realize the fact that the Tathāgata abides permanently and immutably, then by merely hearing the sound of the two words "abides permanently" even once, that person will be directly reborn in the heavens. Later, at the time of their liberation, they will be able to witness the fact that the Tathāgata abides permanently and is immutable. And having attested to this, they will say:

In the past I had only heard about this, but now I have gained liberation and thereupon witnessed it myself. Because I was ignorant of the ultimate reality, I continued to revolve in the cycle of birth and death [seemingly] with no end. But today I have finally achieved true understanding.

When one has understood in this way, they truly appreciate the implications of duḥkha,the benefits of which are substantial. But in the absence of such understanding, no matter how diligent one's practice may be, there will be no benefit. This I call "understanding duḥkha" or "the noble truth 221

The Nirvana Sutra, Volume I

406c

of suffering.

" But for individuals unable to cultivate [understanding]in this way, what they call "suffering" will not be the noble truth of suffering. The [Second] Noble Truth of the causes of suffering denotes what happens when genuine understanding of the genuine dharma does not take place. It is when one accepts impure things such as slaves, effectively taking what is improper and saying,

"this is the true-dharma.

" Vitiating

the true-dharma prevents it from abiding for any length of time and under these conditions there will be no understanding of the natural conditions that are dharmatā.It is owing to that fundamental ignorance that one transmigrates through saṃsāra, incurring much suffering and anxiety, unable to gain either rebirth in the heavens or liberation proper. One who fully recognizes the true-dharma does not damage it, and under those conditions gains rebirth in the heavens or liberation proper. For one who does not recognize the reasoning in the truth of how suffering is caused, the "true-dharma" will not permanently abide: in every way it will be a disappearing dharma. Under these conditions, individuals will experience much pain and anguish in the process of a transmigration that continues for innumerable kalpas. If someone can succeed in recognizing the dharma that abides permanently in a way no different [from any other time or place], that I would call "understanding the causes" or "the noble truth of the causes of suffering.

" But for the individual unable to cultivate

[understanding] in this way, what are called "the causes" will not be the noble truth of the causes of suffering.

The [Third] Noble Truth is the destruction of suffering. If one diligently practices and studies the dharma of emptiness, this will not do. Why? Because eliminating all dharmas [also] destroys the true dharmatreasury of the Tathāgata. To practice and study like this I call "cultivating emptiness.

" But does cultivating the destruction of suffering [in this way] contrast with all of the other paths that are heretical? One may speak of "the cultivation of emptiness as the truth of the destruction [of suffering],

" but the heretical paths all cultivate a dharma of emptiness as well and [assert] it must be the truth of the destruction [of suffering]. If one were to assert,

"There is a tathāgatagarbha,and even though

it cannot be seen it is capable of eliminating all the defilements, which is the point at which one comprehends it,

" then upon bringing forth this

222

Fascicle VII

state of mind, by the conditions wrought by this single thought, one can attain freedom in all dharmas. For one whose meditation focuses on nonself and empty quiescence as the hidden treasury of the Tathāgata, however, there will be innumerable transmigrations and the incurring of suffering throughout. Those who do not approach practice in that way, despite the presence of the defilements [within themselves] will find [those defilements] quickly eliminated. How could this be? It happens through the understanding of the tathāgata hidden treasury—and this is what I call "the noble truth of the destruction of suffering.

" Anyone who is able to

practice the destruction of suffering in this way is a true disciple of mine. Anyone who is not able to practice in this way I regard as someone cultivating emptiness, which does not [lead to] the noble truth of the destruction of suffering. The [Fourth] Noble Truth of the path refers to the [Three] Jewels of the buddha, dharma, and sangha, and also includes liberation proper. There are those living beings, however, with misconceptions in the form of inversions of their thinking, who say: "There is no buddha, dharma, or sangha, nor is there any liberation. The notion of transmigrating in saṃsāra is just an illusion.

" If someone were to cultivate this way of

seeing things, it would lead to incurring significant suffering throughout that person's transmigration in the triple world. But those who can arrive at a perspective in which the Tathāgata is permanently abiding and immutable, and see the dharma, sangha, and liberation likewise, will ride that single thought to a resultant freedom for countless lifetimes, obtained at their whim. Why is this? In the past I also held four inverted views, taking what was not dharma and reckoning it as dharma, for which I received bad karmic fruition beyond measure. It is because I have already eliminated all such thinking that I have attained the complete awakening of a buddha. This is called the [Fourth] Noble Truth of the path. Now if there are people who assert that the Three Jewels are impermanent and cultivate that viewpoint, such practice based on falsehood will not bring the noble truth of the path. But if someone cultivates the notion that the dharma permanently abides, that person would be my disciple. To practice the Four Noble Truths in a way that is based on true seeing, that is what I call the "Four Noble Truths. "

223

The Nirvana Sutra, Volume I

407a

The bodhisattva Kāśyapa then addressed the Buddha, saying: "World-Honored One, I now understand for the first time how to practice the dharma of the profound Four Noble Truths. "

[The Four Inversions]113

The Buddha told Kāśyapa,

Good man, the term "four inversions" (*viparyāsa) [begins with] the perception of suffering as occurring in a situation that is not one of suffering. This [misconception] is what I call an "inversion. " Nonsuffering

(i.e. the total absence of suffering) is that which we call "tathāgata. " To

perceive suffering in association with tathāgatas is to regard them as impermanent and changeable, and if someone were to say, "The Tathāgata

is impermanent,

" that would constitute the suffering of a serious transgression. Or if someone were to say, "The Tathāgata relinquishes this

body of suffering when he enters nirvāṇa, akin to the extinguishing of a flame when burning firewood is exhausted, " this I would [also] call

the perception of suffering where there is no suffering. These are what I call "inversions.

"

Or, someone may put forward this view: If I said,

"The Tathāgata is permanent,

" that would reflect a personalist viewpoint. 114 But the personalist viewpoint is a transgression beyond measure. For this reason it should be preached that the Tathāgata is impermanent. When the dharma is expounded in this way I will feel happy.

But to assert the impermanence of a tathāgata amounts to a statement affirming suffering [in a tathāgata]. And if [one perceives] suffering in tathāgatas, then how do you account for their inherent bliss? Because this amounts to the perception of bliss in suffering, it is to be called "an inversion.

" And the perception of suffering in bliss I also call an inversion. Bliss is precisely what a tathāgata is. Suffering is what a tathāgata would be as something impermanent. To say tathāgatas are impermanent is what I call "perceiving suffering in what is bliss" because tathāgatas do abide permanently, and that is called bliss. 224

Fascicle VII

Someone may say,

"The Tathāgata is permanent, so why does he

enter nirvāṇa?" Or,

"The Tathāgata is devoid of suffering, so why is he going to jettison his body to go out of existence?" These too are perceptions of suffering in what is bliss, and hence I call them inversions. This represents the first type of inversion.

The perception of permanence in what is impermanent and the perception of impermanence in what is permanent, these I also call inversions. Impermanence is called the noncultivation of emptiness; by not focusing one's practice on emptiness one's lifetime is shortened. So if someone says,

"By not cultivating the practice of emptiness and quiescence you will obtain a longer lifetime, " [know that] I would consider

this statement to be inverting [the truth]. This represents the second type of inversion.

The perception of self in what is nonself and the perception of nonself in what is self, these I also call inversions. Worldly people speak of the existence of a self and we also speak of the existence of a self in the Buddha's dharma, but although worldly people affirm the existence of self they do not affirm the existence of buddha-nature. This particular view I call "the perception of self in what is nonself" and this, too, is an inversion. There is a self in the Buddha's dharma but that self is the buddha-nature.

When worldly people say "there is no self in the Buddha's dharma, "

I call this "the perception of nonself in what is self. " So if someone says,

"There is definitely no self in the dharma of the Buddha; that is why the Tathāgata commands his disciples to cultivate practices focused on nonself, " I would call that an inversion. Such notions represent what I call the third type of inversion.

The perception of impurity in what is pure and the perception of purity in what is impure, these I also call inversions. What is pure is precisely the permanent abiding of the Tathāgata, whose body is neither a body sustained by any sort of food, nor a body affected by the defilements, nor a body of flesh, nor a body held together by muscle and bone. Nonetheless someone may assert that

The Tathāgata is impermanent. His is a body sustained by food; it is a body held together by muscles and bones. The dharma, the 407b

225

The Nirvana Sutra, Volume I

sangha, and the [path to] liberation will all be extinguished [when he dies].

This I call an "inversion.

"

Regarding the inversion of perceiving purity in what is impure, you may hear someone say this:

Within this body of mine there is not one dharma that is not pure. It is by means of this lack of impurity that I will surely gain entrance into that place of purity [known as nirvāṇa]. This is the practice of "the contemplation on impurity" that has been taught by the Tathāgata.

This kind of speech is incoherent and false; I call it inverted. These errors represent the fourth type of inversion.

The bodhisattva Kāśyapa then said to the Buddha: World-Honored One, today for the first time I have gained the right view of these things. World-Honored One, the way we were previously you would have called us people who held wrong views. [Kāśyapa continued:] "World-Honored One, is there a self or not in any of the twenty-five forms of existence?"

The Buddha said:

Good man,

"self" is precisely what tathāgatagarbhameans. All living beings have buddha-nature, and this is what is meant by thisnotion of self. However, the significance of "self" understood in this way has been continuously covered over by an uncountable number of the defilements since the beginning [of any given individual's existence], and that is why living beings have been unable to perceive it. [The Five Parables on

Buddha-nature]115

[Parable One]

Good man, consider the parable of an impoverished woman who had a treasure of pure gold within the area of her home. None of the people living in the house were aware of its existence, be they children or adults. 226

Fascicle VII

On one particular occasion, however, an outsider appeared who knew all about the gold and spoke of it to the woman, using expedient means. He then said,

"I would like to hire you now. You can remove some weeds for me.

"

She then replied: "I cannot. But if you were to point out to my son where this treasure-trove of gold is [that you speak of], after that I would quickly come to do that for you.

"

The man answered,

"I know an expedient way to show this to your "

son.

The woman responded,

"None of the people in my house, child or adult, know anything about this. How could you possibly know?" The man said,

"I will now make everything clear. "

This prompted the woman to respond, "Indeed, I also want to see it.

Can you show it to me as well?"

The man then immediately dug up the treasure of pure gold that had been [under] their home. When the woman saw it, she was ecstatic. Enamored of how miraculous the entire event was, she regarded the man with deep admiration.

Good man, the buddha-nature of living beings is just like this: not all living beings are able to perceive it, just like that treasure-trove of which that poor woman was not aware. Good man, what I have now shown is the universality of buddha-nature, possessed by all living beings yet obscured by their defilements, analogous to a poor person who possesses a treasure of pure gold that she cannot see. Today the Tathāgata has shown the universally [existing] treasure repositories of enlightenment in living beings, in other words, buddha-nature itself. When living beings do perceive this, their hearts are filled with joy and a deep reverence for the Tathāgata. [In this parable,] the person of skillful means is the Tathāgata, the woman living in poverty represents all living beings, and the treasure of pure gold is the buddha-nature. [Parable Two]

In addition, good man, consider the story of a caring woman and her infant son who had become ill. In distress, the woman sent for a physician, and when he arrived he mixed together a medicine made of three things: 227

407c

The Nirvana Sutra, Volume I

clarified butter, milk, and granulated honey. As he gave the mixture to her to feed to her child, the physician explained,

"After the child takes

the medicine, do not give him your milk. You may feed him only after he has fully digested the medicine.

" So the mother then smeared a bitter-tasting substance on her breasts and said to her young child, "My

breasts are smeared with poison so you must not touch them. " When

the child became hungry he wanted his mother's milk, but hearing that her breasts were poisonous he pulled away from her. Eventually the medicine was absorbed by the child, whereupon the mother washed her breasts with water and called out to her son,

"Come and I shall give you

milk.

" But at that point, though the little boy felt hunger and thirst, what he had heard earlier about the poison prevented him from approaching her. The mother then told him,

"It was only because I was giving you

medicine that I used the poison! Now that you have fully digested the medicine, I have cleaned myself completely, so you may come and drink from my breasts without pain or bitterness.

" Upon hearing this, the infant

eventually returned and resumed his feeding.

Good man, the Tathāgata is just like this. It was for the sake of saving everyone that I [previously] taught living beings to cultivate [their understanding] of nonself in all dharmas (sarvadharma anātman), [explaining that] after they had practiced in this manner they will have forsaken their egotism (ahaṃkāra) forever and [thereby] attain nirvāṇa. [I taught the nonexistence of self (nairātmabhāva)] in order to dispel erroneous views circulating in the mundane world and reveal a supramundane dharma [to replace it]. In addition, I showed that worldly presumptions of self (laukikātman) are fallacious and not real. [In this context] cultivating the dharma of nonself is therefore meant to cleanse one's identity. Just as in this parable of the woman who smeared her breast with bitter flavor in order to help her child, in like manner the Tathāgata explained that dharmas are all without self in order to [lead his followers to] cultivate emptiness. And just as the woman called her child only after washing her breasts because she wanted him to resume feeding, I also choose this particular moment now to expound the tathāgatagarbha.For this reason, bhikṣus, do not be afraid! Like that small child who eventually returned to drink his mother's milk after hearing her calling him, bhikṣus 228

Fascicle VII

on their own should also distinguish the fact that the tathāgatagarbha cannot possibly not exist.

The bodhisattva Kāśyapa then spoke to the Buddha:

But World-Honored One, truly there is no self. Why is this so? When a child is born he has no understanding of anything. If there were a self, then on the day he is born we would expect him to have knowledge. This is why we know for certain there is no self. Or, if the existence of a self were certain, then after being born there should be no end to life. If all [living beings] had buddha-nature, it would mean permanent abiding and no dimension of dissolution in the [human condition and in other living beings]. If there were no dimension of dissolution, then why would there be distinctions between kṣatriyas, brahmans, vaiśyas, śūdras, caṇḍālas, and animals?116 But now we can see that karmic conditions are dissimilar in various ways, which accordingly results in each realm of rebirth being different. If the existence of a self were certain, then there would be no superiority and inferiority relative to all the different living beings. For these reasons we know with certainty that the buddhanature is not a permanent dharma. If you say the buddha-nature is indeed permanent, then what is the principle that explains the existence of murder, thievery, licentiousness, deception, backbiting, lying, flattery, greed, anger, or erroneous opinions? If our self-natures were permanent, then why do some people become rough or violent after drinking alcohol? If our self-natures were permanent, then the blind should be able to see colors, the deaf should be able to hear sounds, the mute should be able to speak, and the paraplegic should be able to walk. If our self-natures were permanent, then we would have no need to avoid fires, floods, poisons, swords, dangerous people, or wild animals. If our selves were permanent, then we should have no memory loss about anything we have experienced from the very beginning [of our lives]. If we did not forget anything, then on what basis do people say,

"Where was I when I saw

that person?" If our selves were permanent, then we would not get involved in recalling things from our past, such as the flourishing and decline of our strength over the course of youth, maturity, and old age. If the self is permanent, then where does it reside? Is it in the colors of 229

408a

The Nirvana Sutra, Volume I

mucus—green, yellow, red, or white? If the self is permanent, does it pervade the entire body like a coating of sesame oil, complete, without gaps? And if one were to forsake the body, would the self then also be forsaken? [Parable Three]

The Buddha said to Kāśyapa:

Good man, imagine there was a powerful athlete who resided in a king's palace and wore a diamond jewel between his eyebrows. In a wrestling match with another athlete he bumped his forehead into his opponent so fiercely that the jewel penetrated into his skin, sinking down so deeply that he could not find it. As this left a wound, he was ordered to see a physician for treatment. The physician was a bright man and knew how to treat him, for he understood that the wound had been created by the jewel that had entered the man's body by going under his skin, where it was now firmly lodged. [After examining him,] the physician asked the athlete, "My good

man, do you know what happened to the jewel that was on your forehead?" Taken aback, the athlete replied,

"Master physician king, what didhappen

to the jewel on my forehead? It could not be gone, could it? Where is that jewel now? It could not have just vanished!" He then fell into a state of anguish and broke down in tears. But the good doctor consoled him: Do not be upset. When you were wrestling the jewel entered into your body, and now it is shining forth even though it is under your skin. You were so engrossed in the match and the poison of your anger was so intense that you failed to notice when the jewel was forced under your skin [at a moment of contact].

Yet the athlete simply could not believe the doctor, and said: If it were under my skin, there should be blood or pus or something unclean like that. How come nothing is coming out of the wound? And if it were [deeper] within some inner tissue, then it would not be visible [to you]. Why are you trying to deceive me? So the doctor then held up a mirror to show the man his own face, and the jewel was clearly visible in the reflection. When the athlete saw this he was stunned, finding the whole thing miraculous. 230

Fascicle VII

Good man, all living beings are like this. By not being able to get close to a good spiritual advisor, despite the fact [that each of them] has the buddha-nature, they cannot see it. Because their minds are clouded over by greed, lust, resentment, and doubt, they fall into rebirths as hell beings, animals, hungry ghosts, asuras, caṇḍālas, kṣatriyas, brahmans, vaiśyas, or śūdras. They are born into a variety of different families as a consequence of the variety of different karmic conditions they bring into being by their thoughts. Even when they are fortunate enough to receive a human life, they may still be handicapped in their hearing, seeing, speaking, physical movements, their ability to pass urine, or their ability to walk. Within the karmic retributions they receive in their twenty-five forms of existence, there is lust, anger, delusion, stupidity, and doubt that cloud over their minds and they do not understand their buddha-nature.

Like the athlete in the story who bemoaned the loss of his jewel when it was in fact inside his body, living beings are in a similar situation. Because they do not know how to approach a good spiritual advisor, they remain unaware of the hidden treasury that is the tathāgatagarbha,and they study and practice the doctrine of nonself. This is analogous to the mundane person who asserts the existence of self but does not understand the true nature of self. My disciples may also be like this. Because they do not know how to approach a good spiritual advisor, they study and put into practice the doctrine of nonself but they, too, do not understand the point of [the doctrine of] nonself. And if they do not understand the true nature of nonself, then how could they understand the true nature of self?

Good man, the Tathāgata has thus stated that all living beings have buddha-nature. Just like the skilled physician who had to show the champion his diamond jewel, living beings are unaware of their buddha-nature because it is concealed from them by their innumerable defilements, hundreds of millions of them. If they could but do away with these defilements, at that point they could attest to its existence, as it would become utterly clear to them, just like the athlete seeing his jewel in the mirror. Good man, there are innumerable inconceivables like this associated with the tathāgata hidden treasury.

231

408b

The Nirvana Sutra, Volume I

[Parable Four]

In addition, good man, it is like the medicinal plant of singular flavor growing in the Himalayan Mountains, known as "the flavor of bliss" as it is extremely sweet. This plant only grows deep beneath clusters of plants and cannot be seen when looking down at them, but some people can smell it and thereby know where it lies. In the past there was a cakravartinking who would go into the Himalayas for this medicine. Wherever he found it he had wooden cylinders constructed adjacent to the plants. As the plant matures it produces a secretion that would then flow into the tubes. When collected this way, the flavor was as pristine as it was in the plant.

Then the king died, and in the aftermath the medicine that had been of a uniform, singular flavor turned into a variety of different flavors depending on where the stores of it ended up. Some of it became sour, some became salty, some became sweet, some became bitter, some became spicy, and some became astringent in flavor. The true taste of the medicine remained in the mountains, however, like the full moon. Ordinary people with little in the way of merit tried digging with mattocks but despite great effort and hard work, they came away empty-handed. It will appear again only when another cakravartinking appears in the world, for obtaining the genuine flavor of the medicine was a consequence of his merit.

Good man, the flavor of the tathāgata hidden treasury is like this. Covered over by a thicket of defilements, living beings with spiritual ignorance will simply be unable to see it. The singular flavor [of the medicine] is a metaphor for buddha-nature, in that it is because of the defile ments, such as they are in each individual, that [buddha-nature] manifests in various different flavors: namely, the realms of hell, animals, hungry ghosts, gods, males, females, those who are neither male nor female, kṣatriyas, brahmans, vaiśyas, and śūdras. But the buddha-nature is powerful and exceedingly difficult to damage in any way, and that is why there cannot be any murdering [of it]. If killing it were possible, that would mean permanently eliminating the buddha-nature. But buddha-nature is such that in the end it cannot be eliminated [from anyone];the very notion that it could be 232

Fascicle VII

eliminated is absurd. The nature of self in this senseis none other than this hidden treasury that is the tathāgatagarbha. There is simply no means by which this mystic repository, such as it is, could be violently destroyed or burnt up. Yet while it cannot be destroyed, by and large it cannot be seen, either. If you attain unsurpassed perfect enlightenment, however, at that point you witness it. These are the reasons why killing cannot happen in this case.

The bodhisattva Kāśyapa then addressed the Buddha:

World-Honored One, if there were no killing, then there would not be any unwholesome karma.

The Buddha explained to Kāśyapa:

In truth, killing living beings does take place. You may ask why. Good man, the buddha-nature of living beings abides within their five aggregates, and when someone destroys the five aggregates, I indeed call this "killing a living being.

" And one who has killed a living being will fall

into an unfortunate existence [in the next life]. The different forms that beings take among the twenty-five forms of existence as they course through saṃsāra, such as kṣatriya, brahman, vaiśya, śūdra, caṇḍāla, male, female, or neither male nor female, and so forth are due to karmic causation [in like manner].

In this regard, a vulgar person might mistakenly conjecture that the relative size characteristics of the self make it just like a grain of millet, a grain of rice, a bean, or a human thumb. This variety of sizes and shapes are deluded products of the imagination, and conceptions formed of illusions like this have no basis in reality. By contrast, what characterizes the supramundane self is what I call "buddha-nature, " and reckoning the self in this manner is what I call "the highest good. "

[Parable Five]

In addition, good man, consider the story of a man who had come to know quite clearly about a buried treasure, so he picked up a sharp mattock and dug straight down into the ground for it. There were rocks large and small but he got through them, not being blocked by anything until 233

408c