The Poor Woman's Gold, and the Wrestler's Jewel

Kāśyapa said to the Buddha: "World-Honored One, should one truly rely on these four kinds of people described above?" The Buddha said: "It is so, it is so, good son — one should rely on them just as I have taught. Why is this? Because there are four kinds of māra." The bodhisattva Kāśyapa said to the Buddha: "World-Honored One, the Buddha has spoken of four kinds of māra — how am I to distinguish what māra teaches from what the Buddha teaches?"

The Buddha said to Kāśyapa: "Seven hundred years after my parinirvāṇa, Māra Pāpīyas will gradually set about corrupting my true Dharma. It is like a hunter who dresses himself in a monk's robe: Māra will likewise take on the appearance of a monk, a nun, an upāsaka, or an upāsikā, and will even transform himself into the body of a stream-enterer, up through the body of an arhat, and even the Buddha's own golden form. Using these outwardly undefiled forms to conceal his own tainted nature, Māra will corrupt my true Dharma. When Māra Pāpīyas sets about corrupting the true Dharma, he will say: 'The bodhisattva once passed away from the Tuṣita Heaven and came to be born in this palace of King Śuddhodana at Kapilavastu, this very body produced through his parents' union of desire.' It could never possibly be so that a person merely born among humans would be revered by every god and human, by the whole great assembly, in this way. He will say further: 'It was through the ascetic practices of ages past, giving away his own head, eyes, marrow, and brain, his kingdom, his wife and children, that he thereby came to accomplish buddhahood now.' Whatever scripture or Vinaya text teaches in this way should be understood to be entirely Māra's own teaching."

"Good son, whatever scripture or Vinaya text teaches instead: 'The Tathāgata, the Perfectly Awakened One, became a buddha long ago; his present manifestation of attaining buddhahood now is only, for the sake of bringing beings across, a manifestation of having parents and being born through their union of desire, shown only in accordance with the ways of the world' — such a scripture or Vinaya text should be understood to be truly the Tathāgata's own teaching. Whoever follows what Māra teaches is Māra's own follower; whoever is able to follow what the Buddha teaches is a bodhisattva."

"Whoever teaches that it cannot be believed that the Tathāgata, at his birth, took seven steps in each of the ten directions, is teaching what Māra teaches. Whoever teaches instead that the Tathāgata's taking seven steps in each of the ten directions at his birth is itself a skillful manifestation of the Tathāgata's own is teaching what the Tathāgata himself has taught."

"Whoever teaches that, once the bodhisattva was born, his father the king sent attendants to bring him to the shrine of the gods, and that the gods, on seeing him, all bowed down in reverence, and that this alone is why he is called 'Buddha' — and whoever then objects, 'The gods appeared first, and the Buddha came later — how could the gods bow in reverence to the Buddha?' — such an objection should be understood to be exactly what Pāpīyas teaches. Whatever scripture teaches instead that, on the Buddha's arrival at the shrine of the gods, every one of those gods — Maheśvara, the Great Brahmā King, and Śakra himself — joined their palms and bowed in reverence at his feet, is teaching what the Buddha himself has taught."

"Whatever scripture or Vinaya text teaches that the bodhisattva, as crown prince, out of craving, took wives from every direction, dwelt deep within the palace, and delighted in the pleasures of the five senses, is teaching what Pāpīyas teaches. Whoever teaches instead that the bodhisattva had long ago abandoned all craving for wives and children, that he would not accept even the finest pleasures of the Trāyastriṃśa Heaven's five senses, casting them aside like spit, let alone human pleasures, and so shaved his head and beard and went forth to cultivate the path, is teaching what the Buddha himself has taught."

"Whoever teaches that the Buddha, at the Jetavana monastery in Śrāvastī, permitted monks to keep servants, attendants, cattle, sheep, elephants, and horses… out of the Buddha's great compassion and pity for beings, permitting them to keep all such things, is teaching what Māra teaches. Whoever teaches instead that the Buddha, at the Jetavana monastery… taught that monks should not keep gold, silver, lapis lazuli… every such improper possession… and that such a person should no longer be counted among the monks at all, but should give up the path and be sent back to lay life and labor, entirely rooted out like barnyard grass — such teaching in scripture or Vinaya should be understood, in every case, to be exactly what the Tathāgata himself has taught."

"Whoever teaches that the bodhisattva entered the shrines of the gods in order to make offerings to them… when in truth it could never possibly be so that this was anything but a skillful means for taming those very gods and humans; and whoever teaches that the bodhisattva could not master the treatises of heterodox schools, their forms of conduct, arts, and learning… and further, that the Tathāgata holds an equal mind toward friend and foe alike — as though indifferent to being struck with a blade or anointed with perfume, feeling neither benefit nor harm from either, merely remaining neutral, and that this alone is why he is called Tathāgata — such teaching in scripture or Vinaya should be understood to be exactly what Māra teaches. Whoever teaches instead that the bodhisattva, in manifesting his entry into the shrines of the gods and his going forth within the schools of external learning, manifests a full mastery of every form of conduct, every art and skill… and, though moving among every kind of view, gives rise to no attachment at all, like a lotus untouched by the mud around it, employing every kind of skillful means for the sake of bringing every being across, according with the ways of the world — such teaching in scripture or Vinaya should be understood to be exactly what the Tathāgata himself has taught."

"Whoever teaches: 'The Tathāgata has explained to us, in scripture and Vinaya, that the offenses within the category of gross wrongdoing (thullaccaya) are all of a grave nature; in our own Vinaya, we would never commit such acts… what you call scripture and Vinaya is what Māra teaches; what we call scripture and Vinaya is what the Buddha himself has established. The Tathāgata taught nine categories of scripture as his own seal, and it is by these nine seals that our scripture and Vinaya are sealed as genuine — we have never once heard of any Vaipulya scripture among them… and should such a scripture exist, know that it must surely be the work of Devadatta, that wicked man who, to destroy the wholesome Dharma, fabricated these Vaipulya scriptures, which we do not believe in at all' — teaching of this kind is exactly what Māra teaches. Why is this? Because it destroys the very mark of the Buddha's own teaching, mistaking right for wrong."

"Whoever teaches: 'The Tathāgata, for the sake of bringing beings across, taught the Vaipulya scriptures,' should be understood to be truly my own disciple. Whoever does not accept the Vaipulya scriptures should be understood not to be my disciple at all, not to have gone forth for the sake of the Buddha's own Dharma, but to be a disciple of some heterodox school of wrong view instead."

"Furthermore, good son, whoever teaches: 'The Tathāgata is not accomplished through immeasurable virtue, but is impermanent and subject to change; having attained the dharma of emptiness, he teaches no-self, contrary to the ways of the world' — such teaching in scripture or Vinaya is what Māra teaches. Whoever teaches instead: 'The Tathāgata, the Perfectly Awakened One, is beyond conceptual thought, accomplished through immeasurable, countless virtues, and is therefore permanently abiding, without any change' — such teaching in scripture or Vinaya is what the Buddha himself has taught."

"There is a further teaching that says: 'There may be a monk who has not truly committed any of the gravest offenses, though everyone believes he has, as surely as a palm tree once cut down' — and yet this monk has, in truth, committed no such offense at all… For example: there is a monk of few desires and easy contentment, keeping the precepts purely, dwelling in solitude. Should a king or minister see this monk and, believing he has attained arhatship, come forward to praise him, revere him, and bow before him, saying: 'Great teacher, once you set aside this body, you will surely attain unsurpassed, complete awakening' — the monk, hearing this, answers the king: 'I have not, in truth, attained the fruit of the śramaṇa's path; do not, great king, proclaim that I have already attained it… Were I to accept this in silence now, I would surely be reproached by every buddha. Contentment is what every buddha praises, and so I wish, for the whole of my life, to delight in and uphold contentment… The king declares that I have attained it, yet I do not accept this — this is what is called contentment.' The king then answers: 'This great teacher has truly attained the fruit of arhatship, no different from the Buddha himself'… and yet this monk has, in truth, committed no such gravest offense at all. Why is this? Because it was the other person who, of his own accord, gave rise to a joyful heart and offered his praise and reverence — what fault could such a monk possibly bear? Whoever teaches that such a person is guilty of an offense should be understood to be teaching exactly what Māra teaches."

"There is a further teaching, spoken by a certain monk: 'The Buddha's own profound, secret scripture teaches that every being without exception possesses buddha-nature, and, because of this nature, is able to cut off countless millions of afflictions and attain unsurpassed, complete awakening — every being, that is, except the icchantika.' Should a king or minister then say to him: 'Monk, will you become a buddha, or not? Do you possess buddha-nature?' — and the monk answers: 'I now hold, with certainty, that buddha-nature exists within my own body; whether I will actually accomplish buddhahood or not, I cannot yet say for certain' — and the king says: 'Venerable one, so long as you do not become an icchantika, you will surely accomplish it, beyond any doubt' — and the monk answers: 'Just so, exactly as the king has said' — such a person, though he has spoken of possessing buddha-nature with certainty, has still committed no such offense at all. There is, further, a monk who, at the very moment of going forth, thinks to himself: 'I shall surely, without doubt, accomplish unsurpassed, complete awakening.' Such a person, though not yet having attained the peerless fruit of the path, has already attained merit immeasurable, boundless, beyond all reckoning. Should anyone claim that such a person has committed the gravest offense, then every monk without exception would be equally guilty. Why is this? I myself, throughout eighty billion kalpas in ages past, was forever free of every improper possession, of few desires and easy contentment, complete in my own bearing, well cultivating the Tathāgata's own peerless treasury of the Dharma, and knew with certainty, myself, that buddha-nature existed within my own body — and it is for this very reason that I have now accomplished unsurpassed, complete awakening, come to be called Buddha, possessed of great compassion. Such teaching in scripture or Vinaya is what the Buddha himself has taught. Whoever is unable to accept this is Māra's own follower; whoever is able to accept it is a great bodhisattva."

"There is a further teaching that says: 'There are, in truth, no such things as the four gravest offenses, the thirteen offenses requiring temporary suspension… nor the icchantika at all. Were any monk to fall into hell for committing such offenses, then every heterodox practitioner, having no precepts at all to transgress, should by rights be reborn in the heavens instead — this is why the Tathāgata merely manifested these precepts to frighten people, without their being real.' And should anyone claim the Buddha taught: 'My own monks, wishing to engage in sexual conduct, should first set aside their monastic robes and put on lay clothing before doing so; and they should further reflect that the cause and condition of desire is no fault of their own — for even while the Tathāgata still lived, there were monks who indulged in sexual conduct and yet still attained true liberation… whether committing one of the four gravest offenses, or breaking the five precepts, or engaging in every kind of improper conduct, they nonetheless still attained true and genuine liberation… and that there is, in truth, no real difference in gravity from the most serious offense down to the most minor transgression, and that the Vinaya masters who claim otherwise, attributing such distinctions to the Buddha's own teaching, must certainly be mistaken' — teaching of this kind is exactly what Māra's own scripture and Vinaya proclaim."

"Whoever instead teaches: 'Whoever transgresses even the smallest, most minor precept will surely receive a bitter result without any limit — knowing this, one should guard oneself carefully, as a tortoise draws in its six limbs'… I have likewise taught, within my own scriptures, that whoever commits any of the four gravest offenses, down to the most minor transgression, should be disciplined severely. If beings do not uphold the moral precepts, how could they ever come to see their own buddha-nature? 'Though every being possesses buddha-nature, it can only be seen through the keeping of the precepts, and it is by seeing buddha-nature that one comes to accomplish unsurpassed, complete awakening. The ninefold scriptures contain no Vaipulya scripture, and this is why they do not speak of buddha-nature — but though the scriptures do not speak of it, one should understand that it truly exists.' Whoever teaches in this way should be understood to be truly my own disciple."

The bodhisattva Kāśyapa said to the Buddha: "World-Honored One, this claim, made above, that every being without exception possesses buddha-nature, is something never once heard in the ninefold scriptures — if it is nonetheless taught as true, how could this not itself be one of the gravest offenses?" The Buddha said: "Good son, as you have described it, this would indeed not be one of the gravest offenses at all… I teach that buddha-nature exists within the great ocean of wisdom of the Great Vehicle, something the two lesser vehicles neither know nor see — this is why they teach that it does not exist, and they incur no fault in doing so. Such a domain is known to the buddhas alone, and is beyond the reach of any śrāvaka or pratyekabuddha… What, then, is meant by the secret treasury? It refers to the Vaipulya scriptures of the Great Vehicle. Good son, there are heterodox schools that teach either an eternal self or an annihilated self; the Tathāgata teaches neither of these, but teaches both that there is a self and that there is no self — this is called the middle way. Whoever teaches: 'The Buddha teaches the middle way — that every being without exception possesses buddha-nature, but, being covered over by affliction, neither knows nor sees it, and should therefore diligently cultivate skillful means to break through this affliction' — whoever is able to teach in this way should be understood to have committed none of the four gravest offenses. But whoever is unable to teach in this way has indeed committed one of the gravest offenses. Whoever instead teaches: 'I have already accomplished unsurpassed, complete awakening — why is this? Because I possess buddha-nature, and whoever possesses buddha-nature is certain to accomplish unsurpassed, complete awakening; for this very reason, I have already accomplished awakening now' — such a person should be understood to have committed one of the gravest offenses. Why is this? Because, though such a person possesses buddha-nature, he has not yet cultivated the skillful means needed to see it, and, not having seen it, cannot yet accomplish unsurpassed, complete awakening. Good son, it is for this very reason that the Buddha's own teaching is exceedingly profound, beyond conceptual thought."

The bodhisattva Kāśyapa said to the Buddha: "World-Honored One, suppose a king were to ask: how does a monk come to falsely claim a superhuman attainment?" The Buddha said to Kāśyapa: "Suppose there is a monk who, for the sake of personal gain or food, engages in flattery, deceit, and fraud… such a monk, being greatly deluded, constantly thinks through the long night: 'I have not, in truth, attained any of the four fruits of the śramaṇa's path — how can I make the people of the world believe that I have?' Thinking in this way, he seeks only personal gain, not the Dharma itself… Should any monk or nun act in this way, this is what is meant by falsely claiming a superhuman attainment. But there is a further kind of monk who, wishing to establish the peerless true Dharma, dwells in solitude, not an arhat himself, yet wishes others to believe he is one… and, through this very means, gathers countless monks around him as his own following, and, through this, is able to teach precept-breaking monks and upāsakas alike to uphold the precepts, and, through this cause, establishes the true Dharma, illuminating the Tathāgata's own peerless great undertaking, opening up and revealing the teaching of the Vaipulya Great Vehicle, and bringing countless beings across. Saying further: 'I too possess buddha-nature; there is a scripture called the Tathāgata's own secret treasury, and within this very scripture, I shall surely accomplish the path to buddhahood, exhausting countless millions of afflictions' — and expounding widely to countless upāsakas: 'You all possess buddha-nature in full; you and I shall together abide in the very ground of the Tathāgata's own path, accomplishing unsurpassed, complete awakening, exhausting countless millions of afflictions' — whoever speaks in this way is not falsely claiming a superhuman attainment at all, but is rightly called a bodhisattva."

"Whoever teaches: 'Whoever commits even the lightest offense of wrongful conduct falls into hell for eight million years, measured by the years of the Trāyastriṃśa Heaven — how much more so, then, one who deliberately commits an offense of gross wrongdoing? Within the Great Vehicle, any monk who commits an offense of gross wrongdoing should not be kept company with at all'… Such a monk is called one without male organs, or with both, or of indeterminate sex… such a monk should not be kept company with, offered to, or revered. Within the Buddha's own teaching, the conduct proper to a śramaṇa is this: to give rise to a compassionate mind, sheltering and nurturing every being, extending fearlessness even to the smallest ant — this is the conduct of a śramaṇa. To keep entirely apart from wine, even its very scent, is the conduct of a śramaṇa. Never to speak falsely, not even in the thought of a dream, is the conduct of a śramaṇa. Never to give rise to desire, even in a dream, is likewise the conduct of a śramaṇa."

The bodhisattva Kāśyapa said to the Buddha: "World-Honored One, if a monk engages in sexual conduct in a dream, has he thereby broken the precepts?" The Buddha said: "No. He should give rise to a sense of foulness and impurity toward sexual desire, never once giving rise to even a single thought of it as pure, keeping far from any afflictive attachment to women. Should he engage in such conduct in a dream, he should, on waking, give rise to remorse. When a monk goes begging and receives an offering, he should regard the food as though it were the flesh of his own child in a time of famine, and should he give rise to desire, he should cast it off at once. Teaching of this kind should be understood to be exactly what the Buddha himself has taught in scripture and Vinaya."

"Whoever teaches: 'The Buddha permits monks to stand forever on one leg, to remain silent, to throw themselves into deep water or fire, to leap from high cliffs without regard for danger, to swallow poison and fast, to lie upon ash and dirt, to bind their own hands and feet, to kill living beings, to practice mantras of black magic; and that caṇḍāla sons, those without male organs, with both, or of indeterminate sex, and those with incomplete bodily faculties, may all be permitted by the Tathāgata to go forth into the path' — this is what Māra teaches… Whatever scripture or Vinaya text teaches this should be understood to be exactly what Māra teaches. I have never permitted standing forever on one leg — for the sake of the Dharma, I permit walking, standing, sitting, and lying down as is fitting. Nor have I ever permitted swallowing poison and fasting, scorching the body with the five fires, binding one's own hands and feet, killing living beings, or practicing mantras of black magic… stockpiling seeds, or believing plants and trees possess a life-force of their own, or wearing the great nāga-hide garment. Whoever claims the World-Honored One taught such things should be understood to be a follower of some heterodox school, not my own disciple. 'I have permitted only the eating of the five products of the cow, and oil and honey; I have permitted wearing leather sandals and silk garments; and I teach that the four great elements possess no life-force of their own.' Whatever scripture or Vinaya text teaches this is what the Buddha himself has taught."

"Good son, I have now explained and distinguished for you, at length, the difference between what Māra teaches and what the Buddha teaches." Kāśyapa said to the Buddha: "World-Honored One, only now do I understand the difference between what Māra teaches and what the Buddha teaches, and, through this, have I been able to enter the profound meaning of the Buddha's own teaching." The Buddha praised Kāśyapa: "Excellent, excellent, good son! That you are able to discern and distinguish this so clearly is itself called true acumen."

"Good son, what is called suffering is not, by itself, the noble truth of suffering. Why is this? If suffering itself were the noble truth of suffering, then every ox, sheep, donkey, horse, and being in hell would already possess this noble truth. Good son, whoever does not know the Tathāgata's own profoundly deep domain, his permanently abiding, unchanging, subtle Dharma-body, and instead takes it to be a body that eats, not the Dharma-body, failing to know the Tathāgata's own virtue and majestic power — this not-knowing is itself what is meant by suffering. Why is this? Because of this not-knowing, one sees the Dharma as not the Dharma, and what is not the Dharma as the Dharma; know that such a person must surely fall into an evil destiny, turning through birth and death, ever increasing his own fetters, and enduring great suffering. But whoever is able to know that the Tathāgata abides permanently, without any change — even hearing only the two syllables 'permanent abiding' pass once through the ear is enough to bring about rebirth among the gods, and, at the time of final liberation, to fully realize that the Tathāgata abides permanently, without any change… To know it in this way is truly to cultivate the understanding of suffering, and brings great benefit; not to know it renders even diligent practice without any benefit at all. This is what is meant by truly knowing suffering, the noble truth of suffering. Whoever is unable to cultivate it in this way has only suffering, not the noble truth of suffering."

"As for the noble truth of the origin of suffering: it is failing to give rise to true wisdom regarding the true Dharma, accepting improper possessions such as servants, calling what is contrary to the Dharma the true Dharma, thereby cutting off and destroying the true Dharma, preventing it from long abiding. Through this very cause, one fails to know the Dharma-nature, and, through this not-knowing, turns through birth and death, enduring great suffering, unable to be reborn among the gods or to attain true liberation. But whoever has the profound wisdom not to destroy the true Dharma will, through this very cause, be reborn among the gods and attain true liberation… Whoever is able to know that the Dharma abides permanently, without difference, is said to truly know the origin of suffering, the noble truth of its origin. Whoever is unable to cultivate it in this way has only the origin of suffering, not the noble truth of its origin."

"As for the noble truth of the cessation of suffering: whoever cultivates extensively only the teaching of emptiness is doing something unwholesome. Why is this? Because it extinguishes every dharma, and destroys the Tathāgata's own true treasury of the Dharma. To cultivate in this way is called cultivating mere emptiness. To properly cultivate the cessation of suffering runs contrary to every heterodox school — for if cultivating emptiness alone were the truth of cessation, then every heterodox school, which also cultivates a teaching of emptiness, should equally possess this truth of cessation. Whoever instead teaches: 'There exists the tathāgatagarbha; though it cannot be seen, once one is able to extinguish every affliction, one thereby enters it — and the moment this resolve is given rise to, one attains mastery over every dharma' — such a person has grasped it rightly. Whoever cultivates only the Tathāgata's secret treasury as mere no-self and empty stillness will, throughout immeasurable ages, remain turning through birth and death, enduring suffering. But whoever does not cultivate it in this mistaken way will, though affliction remains, swiftly be able to extinguish it. Why is this? Because of truly knowing the Tathāgata's own secret treasury. This is what is meant by the noble truth of the cessation of suffering. Whoever is able to cultivate this cessation in the right way is truly my own disciple. Whoever is unable to cultivate it in this way has only cultivated emptiness, not the noble truth of cessation."

"As for the noble truth of the path: this refers to the treasures of the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Saṅgha, and to true liberation itself. There are beings of inverted mind who say: 'There is no Buddha, no Dharma, no Saṅgha, and no true liberation — birth and death simply turn on, like a conjured illusion.' Cultivating this view, they turn through the three realms of existence because of it, enduring great suffering for a long time. But whoever is able to give rise to the resolve to see that the Tathāgata abides permanently, without change, and that the Dharma, the Saṅgha, and liberation are just the same, will, riding upon this single thought, attain mastery over their own karmic results, exactly as they wish, throughout immeasurable ages to come… This is what is meant by the noble truth of the path. Whoever teaches that the Three Jewels are impermanent, and cultivates this view, is cultivating a false teaching, not the noble truth of the path. Whoever cultivates this teaching, taking it as permanently abiding, is truly my own disciple. Truly seeing and cultivating the teaching of these four noble truths is what is meant by the Four Noble Truths."

The Buddha said to Kāśyapa: "Good son, as for the four inversions: giving rise to a perception of suffering where there is, in truth, no suffering, is called inversion. What is not suffering is the Tathāgata; giving rise to a perception of suffering means holding that the Tathāgata is impermanent, subject to change. To say the Tathāgata is impermanent is itself the gravest offense, the gravest suffering. To say the Tathāgata relinquishes this suffering-body and enters nirvāṇa as firewood is consumed and a flame goes out, is precisely giving rise to a perception of suffering where there is no suffering at all — this is inversion. 'Were I to say the Tathāgata is permanent, this would itself be the view of a fixed self, and this view of a fixed self would bring immeasurable fault upon me — I should therefore say the Tathāgata is impermanent, and in saying so, I shall find ease.' Yet if the Tathāgata is impermanent, this is itself suffering — and how could bliss ever arise from suffering? Giving rise to a perception of bliss within what is actually suffering is itself called inversion."

"Giving rise to a perception of suffering within what is bliss is likewise called inversion. Bliss is the Tathāgata himself; suffering is the Tathāgata's impermanence. To say the Tathāgata is impermanent is precisely giving rise to a perception of suffering within what is bliss. The Tathāgata's permanent abiding is itself what is called bliss. Should I say: 'If the Tathāgata is permanent, how could he then enter nirvāṇa at all? And if the Tathāgata is not suffering, how could he relinquish his body and attain cessation?' — this too is giving rise to a perception of suffering within what is bliss, and is called inversion. This is the first inversion."

"Taking the impermanent as permanent, and the permanent as impermanent, is called inversion. The impermanent here means failing to cultivate emptiness — and, failing to cultivate emptiness, one's life is cut short. Whoever teaches that a long life can be attained without cultivating empty stillness is engaged in inversion — this is the second inversion."

"Taking no-self as self, and self as no-self, is called inversion. Ordinary people in the world also speak of a self; the Buddha's own teaching also speaks of a self. Yet when ordinary people speak of a self, they mean something without buddha-nature at all — this is precisely giving rise to a perception of self where there is, in truth, no self, and is called inversion. When the Buddha's teaching speaks of a self, it means precisely buddha-nature; when ordinary people say the Buddha's teaching holds there is no self at all, this is giving rise to a perception of no-self within what is truly self. To say that the Buddha's teaching holds, without qualification, that there is no self at all, and that the Tathāgata therefore instructs his disciples to cultivate no-self without exception, is itself called inversion. This is the third inversion."

"Taking what is pure as impure, and what is impure as pure, is called inversion. What is pure is the Tathāgata's own permanent abiding — not a body that eats mixed food, not a body of affliction, not a body of mere flesh, not a body bound together by sinew and bone. Whoever teaches: 'The Tathāgata is impermanent, a body that eats mixed food, even a body bound by sinew and bone; the Dharma, the Saṅgha, and liberation are themselves things utterly extinguished' — this is called inversion. As for taking what is impure as pure, being called inversion: whoever teaches: 'There is not a single impure thing within this body of mine; and, having nothing impure within it, I am certain to attain a place of purity — the Tathāgata's own teaching on cultivating the contemplation of impurity is itself a false teaching' — this too is called inversion. This is the fourth inversion."

The bodhisattva Kāśyapa said to the Buddha: "World-Honored One, only from this day do I first attain right view… World-Honored One, does the self exist within the twenty-five states of existence, or not?" The Buddha said: "Good son, the self here means precisely the tathāgatagarbha. That every being without exception possesses buddha-nature is precisely what is meant by this self. This meaning of self has, from the very beginning, always been covered over by countless afflictions, and this is why beings are unable to see it. Good son, it is like a poor woman whose house contains a great treasury of true gold, of which not a single member of her household, young or old, has any knowledge at all. There comes a certain person, skilled in the use of skillful means, who says to this poor woman: 'I will hire you now to weed and clear the grass for me.' The woman answers: 'I cannot do this — but if you can show me where my son's own gold treasury lies, I will work for you at once.' The person says further: 'I know a way, and can show your son this treasure.' The woman answers: 'Not even my own household, young or old, knows of it — how could you possibly know?' The person says further: 'I truly am able.' The woman answers: 'Then I too wish to see it — please, show it to me.' The person then digs into her own house and unearths the true treasury of gold. Seeing this, the woman is filled with joy, marveling at what she has seen, and reveres this person deeply. Good son, the buddha-nature of beings is just the same: no being is able to see it, just as that poor woman did not know of her own hidden treasure. Good son, I now reveal to everyone that the buddha-nature possessed by every being, though covered over by every affliction, is exactly like that poor woman's own treasury of true gold, unseen though it was. The Tathāgata now reveals to beings this treasury of awakening, namely buddha-nature itself, and every being, on seeing this, is filled with joy, and turns to revere the Tathāgata. The one skilled in means is the Tathāgata himself; the poor woman is every one of the countless beings; and the treasury of true gold is buddha-nature itself."

"Furthermore, good son, it is like a woman who gives birth to a child, and the infant falls ill; the woman, distressed, seeks out a physician. The physician arrives, and compounds three medicines — ghee, milk, and rock sugar — and gives them to the child to take, telling the woman: 'Once the child has taken this medicine, do not yet give him milk — only once the medicine has been digested should you give it to him.' The woman then smears her own breast with something bitter, and says to her child: 'My breast is now smeared with poison — you must not touch it.' The child, thirsty and wanting his mother's milk, catches the bitter scent and withdraws at once. Once the medicine has finally been digested, the mother washes her breast clean with water, and calls to her child: 'Come now, and I will give you milk.' The child, though still hungry and thirsty, remembers the bitter scent from before, and will not come. The mother says to him further: 'It was only to keep you from touching my breast while you took your medicine that I smeared it with something bitter — your medicine has now been digested, and I have washed it clean; you may come now and drink without any trouble.' Hearing this, the child gradually returns and drinks again. Good son, the Tathāgata is just the same: in order to bring every being across, he teaches them to cultivate the dharma of no-self, and, having cultivated it, to forever cut off the mind that clings to a self, and enter nirvāṇa — this in order to remove the false views of the world, and to manifest something surpassing the ordinary dharmas of the world. He further shows that the self ordinary people conceive of in the world is itself false and unreal, and so teaches the cultivation of no-self, to purify the body — just as that woman, for her child's own sake, smeared her breast with something bitter. The Tathāgata is just the same: in order to teach the cultivation of emptiness, he taught that all dharmas are without self. And just as that woman, having washed her breast clean, calls her child back to drink again, I am just the same: I now teach the tathāgatagarbha, and so you monks should not be afraid, just as that child, hearing his mother call, gradually returned to drink again. You monks should likewise discern for yourselves that the Tathāgata's own secret treasury cannot fail to exist."

The bodhisattva Kāśyapa said to the Buddha: "World-Honored One, there is, in truth, no self at all. Why is this? An infant, at birth, has no awareness of anything — if a self truly existed, awareness should already be present on the very day of birth; for this reason, one can be certain that there is no self. And if a self truly existed, it should never come to an end once a life has begun. If every being possessed buddha-nature, and this were something permanently abiding, it should have no mark of destruction at all — but if it has no mark of destruction, how could there be such differences as kṣatriya, brāhmaṇa, vaiśya, śūdra, caṇḍāla, and animal? We plainly see that karmic causes and conditions differ from one being to the next, and that beings are reborn into different destinies — if a self truly existed with certainty, no being should ever be superior or inferior to another; for this reason, one can be certain that buddha-nature is not a permanent thing. If buddha-nature is said to be permanent with certainty, why, then, do we still speak of killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, divisive speech, harsh speech, false speech, idle chatter, greed, anger, and wrong view at all? If the nature of self were permanent, why would a person become confused and disoriented after drinking wine? If the nature of self were permanent, the blind should be able to see forms, the deaf should be able to hear sounds, the mute should be able to speak, and the lame should be able to walk. If the nature of self were permanent, one should have no need to avoid a pit of fire, a great flood, poison, a blade, a wicked person, or a wild beast. If the self were permanent, whatever one has once experienced should never be forgotten — yet if nothing is ever forgotten, why do we still say, 'Where have I seen this person before?' If the self were permanent, there should be no such thing as youth, maturity, and old age, no waxing and waning of strength, and no need to recall past events at all. If the self were permanent, where, exactly, does it reside? Is it found in spit and mucus, or among the colors blue, yellow, red, and white? If the self were permanent, it should pervade the whole body evenly, like sesame oil, leaving no gap at all — and were the body to be severed, the self should be severed along with it."

The Buddha said to Kāśyapa: "Good son, it is like a great wrestler in a king's own household, who has a jewel of vajra set between his brows. Wrestling with another strong man, this wrestler is struck upon the forehead by his opponent's own head, and the jewel sinks at once beneath his skin, without his even realizing where it has gone. A wound appears in its place, and he summons a skilled physician to treat it himself. This wise physician, well versed in remedies, recognizes at once that the wound was caused by the jewel sinking into the body, and that the jewel, having entered beneath the skin, now remains lodged there. The physician then asks the wrestler: 'Where has the jewel from your own brow gone?' The wrestler answers, startled: 'Great physician, has the jewel from my own brow truly vanished? Where could it possibly be now? Could this be some illusion?' — and he falls into grief and weeping. The physician then comforts and reassures the wrestler: 'You should not now give way to such great sorrow. When you were wrestling, the jewel sank into your own body, and now lies beneath your skin, its image still visible from without. It was because your anger blazed so fiercely during the match that the jewel sank into your body without your realizing it.' The wrestler, not believing the physician, says: 'If it were beneath my skin, surrounded by pus and blood, why has it not come out? And if it were lodged among the sinews, it should not be visible at all. Why do you now try to deceive me?' The physician then takes up a mirror and holds it before the wrestler's face, and the jewel appears in the mirror, clearly and distinctly visible. Seeing this, the wrestler is filled with astonishment and wonder. Good son, every being is just the same: because they fail to draw near a true spiritual friend, they are unable to see their own buddha-nature, though they possess it, covered over as it is by craving, anger, and delusion, and so fall into hell, among the animals, the hungry ghosts, the asuras, or are born as caṇḍālas, kṣatriyas, brāhmaṇas, vaiśyas, or śūdras, born into households of every such kind; and, through the various karmic causes and conditions their own minds have given rise to, even when they obtain a human body, they may be deaf, blind, mute, or lame, receiving every kind of result throughout the twenty-five states of existence, their minds covered over by craving, anger, and delusion, unaware of their own buddha-nature — just like that wrestler, whose jewel remained within his own body all along, though he believed it lost. Beings are just the same: failing to draw near a true spiritual friend, they fail to recognize the Tathāgata's own subtle and precious treasury, and, cultivating the teaching of no-self, are like one who has not yet become a noble one — though they speak of a self, they still fail to know the true nature of that self. My own disciples are just the same: failing to draw near a true spiritual friend, they cultivate the teaching of no-self without knowing even where this no-self actually applies — not knowing the true nature of no-self itself, how much less could they know the true nature of self? Good son, the Tathāgata's teaching that every being possesses buddha-nature is just like that skilled physician showing the wrestler his own jewel of vajra. These beings, covered over by countless millions of afflictions, fail to recognize their own buddha-nature; only once every affliction is exhausted are they able to realize it with utter clarity, just as that wrestler saw his own jewel clearly reflected in the mirror. Good son, the Tathāgata's own secret treasury is boundless and beyond conceptual thought in just this way."

"Furthermore, good son, it is like a single-flavored medicine found in the Himalayas, called the medicine of delight. Its flavor is exceedingly sweet, hidden deep beneath thick undergrowth, where no one can see it — yet whoever catches its scent knows at once that this medicine must be found in that place. In ages past there was a wheel-turning king who, for the sake of this medicine, had wooden channels built throughout the Himalayas to collect it; when the medicine ripens, it flows out from the earth and gathers in these wooden channels, its flavor pure and true. Once that king had passed away, this medicine came to taste, in various places, sometimes sour, sometimes salty, sometimes sweet, sometimes bitter, sometimes pungent, sometimes bland — this single flavor taking on every kind of difference depending on where it flowed. Yet the medicine's own true flavor remains, unchanged, within the mountain itself, like the moon at its fullest. Ordinary people, of scant merit, though they dig and labor at great cost, are unable to obtain it; but should a sage-king appear in the world, through the power of his own merit, he is able to obtain the medicine's true, unmixed flavor at once. Good son, the Tathāgata's own secret treasury is just the same in its flavor, covered over by the dense thicket of every affliction, so that beings clouded by ignorance are unable to see it at all. This single flavor is a likeness for buddha-nature itself; because of affliction, it takes on every kind of different flavor — namely, the flavors of hell, of the animal realm, of hungry ghosts, of gods and humans, of male and female and neither, of kṣatriya, brāhmaṇa, vaiśya, and śūdra. Buddha-nature is fierce and mighty, exceedingly hard to destroy, and this is why nothing can ever truly kill it; were anyone able to kill it, buddha-nature itself would thereby be severed — but buddha-nature can never, in the end, be severed at all, and for it to be severable could not possibly be so. What I call my own nature is precisely the Tathāgata's own secret treasury, and this secret treasury cannot be destroyed or burned away by anything at all; though it cannot be destroyed, it likewise cannot be seen, and only once one has accomplished unsurpassed, complete awakening does one come to realize it fully — and it is for this very reason that nothing can ever kill it."

The bodhisattva Kāśyapa said again to the Buddha: "World-Honored One, if nothing can be killed, then there should be no such thing as an unwholesome act of killing at all." The Buddha said to Kāśyapa: "There is, in truth, real killing. Why is this? Good son, the buddha-nature of beings abides within the five aggregates; to destroy the five aggregates is what is called killing, and whoever kills falls into an evil destiny, and, through this karmic cause, comes to be born as a kṣatriya, a brāhmaṇa, a vaiśya, a śūdra, a caṇḍāla, male, female, or neither, turning through birth and death amid every mark of difference within the twenty-five states of existence. Those who are not noble ones wrongly conceive of a self with every kind of size and mark — as small as a mustard seed, or a grain of rice or bean, or as large as a thumb — giving rise to every such false imagining, none of which holds any truth at all. The mark of self that transcends the world is precisely buddha-nature — to conceive of self in this way is the most excellent conception of all."

"Furthermore, good son, it is like a person skilled in locating a buried treasure, who digs straight down into the earth with a sharp mattock, passing easily through solid rock and gravel alike, until he reaches vajra itself, which he cannot penetrate at all — for vajra cannot be destroyed by any blade or axe. Good son, the buddha-nature of beings is just the same: it cannot be destroyed by any philosopher, by the heavenly Māra Pāpīyas, or by any god or human. The marks of the five aggregates are themselves things that arise through activity, and, being marks that arise through activity, are like that rock and gravel, able to be penetrated and destroyed; buddha-nature, however, is like that vajra, unable to be destroyed at all. It is for this very reason that to destroy the five aggregates is what is called killing. Good son, you should be certain to understand that the Buddha's own teaching is, in this way, beyond conceptual thought."