What Was, What Wasn't

The bodhisattva Kāśyapa said to the Buddha: "World-Honored One, what benefit does the bodhisattva-mahāsattva obtain, being able to know in this way?"

The Buddha said: "Good son, the bodhisattva-mahāsattva, being able to know in this way, attains four kinds of unimpeded knowledge: unimpeded knowledge of the Dharma, unimpeded knowledge of meaning, unimpeded knowledge of expression, and unimpeded knowledge of eloquence. Unimpeded knowledge of the Dharma means knowing every dharma and every dharma's own name. Unimpeded knowledge of meaning means knowing every meaning possessed by every dharma, able to construct its meaning according to whatever name has been given to it. Unimpeded knowledge of expression means mastery of etymological analysis, of correct pronunciation, of poetic composition, and of worldly rhetoric. Unimpeded knowledge of eloquence means that whatever the bodhisattva-mahāsattva expounds is entirely without obstruction, cannot be shaken or turned aside, is fearless and unhesitating, and is difficult for anyone to overcome. Good son, this is what is meant by a bodhisattva able to see and know in this way, thereby attaining these four kinds of unimpeded knowledge.

"Furthermore, good son, unimpeded knowledge of the Dharma means that the bodhisattva-mahāsattva thoroughly knows the dharma of the śrāvaka, the pratyekabuddha, the bodhisattva, and every buddha. Unimpeded knowledge of meaning means that, though there are three vehicles, he knows that they return to a single one, and never once holds that they bear any mark of real difference. Unimpeded knowledge of expression means that the bodhisattva-mahāsattva, with regard to a single dharma, is able to construct names of every kind, and could speak of it throughout immeasurable kalpas without ever exhausting them — that a śrāvaka or pratyekabuddha could speak in this way is simply not possible. Unimpeded knowledge of eloquence means that the bodhisattva-mahāsattva, throughout immeasurable kalpas, expounds every dharma for the sake of beings — whether its name or its meaning — in every kind of varied exposition, without ever exhausting it.

"Furthermore, good son, unimpeded knowledge of the Dharma means that the bodhisattva-mahāsattva, though he knows every dharma, grasps at none of them. Unimpeded knowledge of meaning means that the bodhisattva-mahāsattva, though he knows every meaning, likewise grasps at none of them. Unimpeded knowledge of expression means that the bodhisattva-mahāsattva, though he knows every name, likewise grasps at none of them. Unimpeded knowledge of eloquence means that the bodhisattva-mahāsattva, though he knows this eloquence to be the very finest, likewise grasps at none of it. Why is this? Good son, should one grasp at these things, one would not be called a bodhisattva at all."

The bodhisattva Kāśyapa said further to the Buddha: "World-Honored One, if one grasps at nothing, then one does not know the Dharma; and if one does know the Dharma, then one must be grasping at it. If one knows without grasping, then one knows nothing at all. How, then, can the Tathāgata say that one knows the Dharma and yet grasps at none of it?"

The Buddha said: "Good son, whoever grasps at things is not called unimpeded; only one who grasps at nothing at all is called unimpeded. Good son, it is for this very reason that, among every bodhisattva, whoever grasps at things has no unimpeded knowledge at all; and, lacking unimpeded knowledge, he is not called a bodhisattva — one should know that such a person is called an ordinary being instead. Why is grasping called the mark of an ordinary being? Every ordinary being grasps at form, and so on, up through grasping at consciousness. Because he grasps at form, craving arises in him; and, craving having arisen, he becomes bound by form, and so on, up through being bound by consciousness; and, being so bound, he is unable to escape birth, old age, illness, death, sorrow and grief, great suffering, and every affliction — it is for this very reason that grasping is called the mark of an ordinary being. It is for this very reason that every ordinary being lacks the four kinds of unimpeded knowledge. Good son, the bodhisattva-mahāsattva, having already, throughout immeasurable incalculable kalpas, known and seen the mark of every dharma, thereby knows its meaning as well; and, having seen the mark of every dharma and known its meaning, he gives rise to no binding attachment toward form, and so on, up through consciousness, in just the same way; and, being free of attachment, the bodhisattva gives rise to no craving toward form, and so on, up through consciousness, likewise giving rise to no craving; and, being free of craving, he is not bound by form, and so on, up through not being bound by consciousness; and, being unbound, he thereby attains liberation from birth, old age, illness, death, sorrow and grief, great suffering, and every affliction. It is for this very reason that every bodhisattva attains the four kinds of unimpeded knowledge. Good son, it is through this very cause and condition that I have taught my disciples, within the twelve divisions of the scriptures, that binding attachment is called the bondage of Māra, and that whoever is free of attachment is thereby freed from the bondage of Māra. It is like a guilty man in the world, who is bound by the king, while an innocent man cannot be bound by the king at all. The bodhisattva-mahāsattva is just the same: whoever has binding attachment is bound by Māra, and whoever is free of binding attachment cannot be bound by Māra at all. It is for this very reason that the bodhisattva-mahāsattva grasps at nothing whatsoever.

"Furthermore, good son, unimpeded knowledge of the Dharma means that the bodhisattva-mahāsattva is well able to retain every letter, without ever forgetting it. What is meant by 'retaining' here is: as the earth retains, as a mountain retains, as the eye retains, as a cloud retains, as a person retains, as a mother retains — every dharma is just the same. Unimpeded knowledge of meaning means this: though a bodhisattva knows the names of every dharma, he might not yet know their meaning; attaining unimpeded knowledge of meaning, he then knows this meaning. How does he know this meaning? As for the earth's retaining, it is like the earth, which universally retains every sentient and insentient thing — it is for this reason that the earth is named 'retaining.' Good son, as for a mountain's retaining, the bodhisattva-mahāsattva reflects in this way: 'Why is a mountain, too, named "retaining"? A mountain is able to retain the earth, keeping it from collapsing — it is for this reason that it, too, is named "retaining." Why, further, is the eye named "retaining"? The eye is able to retain light — it is for this reason that it is named "retaining." Why, further, is a cloud named "retaining"? A cloud is called the breath of the nāga, and the nāga's breath retains water — it is for this reason that a cloud is named "retaining." Why, further, is a person named "retaining"? A person is able to retain the Dharma and non-Dharma alike — it is for this reason that a person is named "retaining." Why, further, is a mother named "retaining"? A mother is able to retain her own child — it is for this reason that a mother is named "retaining."' The bodhisattva-mahāsattva knows the names and the meanings of every dharma's phrases in just this same way. Unimpeded knowledge of expression means that the bodhisattva-mahāsattva, using every kind of expression, expounds a single meaning — and yet there is no real meaning in the expression itself, just as with the names 'man' and 'woman,' 'house' and 'carriage,' or 'being.' Why is there no meaning in these? Good son, meaning itself is the domain of the bodhisattva and of every buddha, while expression is the domain of the ordinary being. It is through knowing meaning that one attains unimpeded knowledge of expression. Unimpeded knowledge of eloquence means that the bodhisattva-mahāsattva, knowing both expression and meaning, is able, throughout immeasurable incalculable kalpas, to speak of expression and of meaning without ever exhausting them — this is called unimpeded knowledge of eloquence.

"Good son, the bodhisattva-mahāsattva, throughout immeasurable, boundless incalculable kalpas, cultivates worldly truth, and, through this very cultivation, attains unimpeded knowledge of the Dharma. He further, throughout immeasurable incalculable kalpas, cultivates the ultimate truth, and thereby attains unimpeded knowledge of meaning. He further, throughout immeasurable incalculable kalpas, studies the treatises on grammar, and thereby attains unimpeded knowledge of expression. He further, throughout immeasurable incalculable kalpas, cultivates the treatises expounding worldly truth, and thereby attains unimpeded knowledge of eloquence."

"Good son, that a śrāvaka or pratyekabuddha could ever attain these four kinds of unimpeded knowledge is simply not possible. Good son, within the nine divisions of the scriptures, I have said that the śrāvaka and pratyekabuddha possess the four kinds of unimpeded knowledge — yet, in truth, they possess none at all. Why is this? The bodhisattva-mahāsattva cultivates these four kinds of unimpeded knowledge for the very sake of saving beings. The pratyekabuddha, cultivating the dharma of still extinction, delights in dwelling alone, and, should he transform beings at all, does so only by manifesting supernatural power, remaining silent the whole day through, without expounding anything at all — how, then, could he possess the four kinds of unimpeded knowledge? Why does he remain silent, expounding nothing? Because the pratyekabuddha is unable to teach the Dharma to save others. Even should he cause a being to attain the dharmas of heat, of the summit, of forbearance, and of the highest worldly dharma, or the fruits of stream-entry, once-returning, non-returning, arhatship, or pratyekabuddhahood, or even the state of a bodhisattva-mahāsattva, he is unable to cause anyone to give rise to the mind of unsurpassed, complete awakening. Why is this? Good son, when a pratyekabuddha appears in the world, the world is entirely without the nine divisions of the scriptures — it is for this very reason that the pratyekabuddha has no unimpeded knowledge of expression, and no unimpeded knowledge of eloquence. Good son, the pratyekabuddha, though he knows every dharma, has no unimpeded knowledge of the Dharma at all. Why is this? Unimpeded knowledge of the Dharma is named knowing every letter, and the pratyekabuddha, though he knows the written letters, has no unimpeded knowledge of these letters. Why is this? Because he does not know the two characters for 'eternally abiding' — it is for this very reason that the pratyekabuddha does not attain unimpeded knowledge of the Dharma. Though he knows of meaning, he has no unimpeded knowledge of meaning. Truly knowing meaning means knowing that every being, without exception, possesses buddha-nature, and the meaning of buddha-nature is itself named unsurpassed, complete awakening. It is for this very reason that the pratyekabuddha does not attain unimpeded knowledge of meaning. It is for this very reason that the pratyekabuddha possesses none of the four kinds of unimpeded knowledge at all. How is it that the śrāvaka, too, lacks the four kinds of unimpeded knowledge? The śrāvaka lacks three kinds of skillful means. What are these three? First, one who must be approached with gentle words before he will accept the Dharma; second, one who must be approached with harsh words before he will accept being transformed; and third, one who must be approached with neither gentle nor harsh words before he will accept being transformed. The śrāvaka, lacking these three, therefore lacks the four kinds of unimpeded knowledge. Furthermore, the śrāvaka and pratyekabuddha are unable, in the end, to fully know expression and meaning; they lack the mastery of wisdom that knows every domain; they lack the ten powers and the four kinds of fearlessness; they are unable, in the end, to cross the great river of the twelve links of dependent origination; they are unable to discern well the sharp and dull faculties of beings in all their difference; they have not yet forever severed all doubt regarding the two truths; they do not know the various objects upon which the minds of beings depend; and they are unable to expound well the emptiness of the ultimate meaning — it is for this very reason that the two lesser vehicles lack the four kinds of unimpeded knowledge."

The bodhisattva Kāśyapa said to the Buddha: "World-Honored One, if every śrāvaka and pratyekabuddha, without exception, lacks the four kinds of unimpeded knowledge entirely, why, then, has the World-Honored One taught that Śāriputra is foremost in wisdom, that Mahāmaudgalyāyana is foremost in supernatural power, and that Mahākauṣṭhila is foremost in the four kinds of unimpeded knowledge? If they truly lack it, why did the Tathāgata teach in this way?"

At that time, the World-Honored One praised Kāśyapa, saying: "Excellent, excellent, good son! It is like this: the Gaṅgā River holds an immeasurable amount of water; the great Sindhu River, too, holds an immeasurable amount of water; the great Vakṣu River, too, holds an immeasurable amount of water; the great Sītā River, too, holds an immeasurable amount of water; Lake Anavatapta, too, holds an immeasurable amount of water; and the great ocean, too, holds an immeasurable amount of water. Though these waters are all alike called "immeasurable," their actual quantities are, in fact, not equal to one another; the four kinds of unimpeded knowledge possessed by the śrāvaka, the pratyekabuddha, and every bodhisattva are just the same, good son — to say that they are all equal is simply not possible. Good son, I taught, for the sake of ordinary beings, that Mahākauṣṭhila's own four kinds of unimpeded knowledge were the very foremost — the meaning of what you have asked is just this. Good son, a śrāvaka may attain one of these four, or he may attain two of them; but that he should be fully endowed with all four is simply not possible."

The bodhisattva Kāśyapa said to the Buddha: "World-Honored One, as the Buddha has already taught within this chapter on pure conduct, that a bodhisattva's own knowing and seeing attain the four kinds of unimpeded knowledge — this very knowing and seeing is itself non-attainment, and holds no thought at all of saying 'this is non-attainment.' World-Honored One, this bodhisattva-mahāsattva, in truth, attains nothing at all. Should a bodhisattva's mind hold any notion of attainment, he would not be a bodhisattva at all, but would be called an ordinary being. How, then, can the Tathāgata say that a bodhisattva has something attained?"

The Buddha said: "Good son, excellent, excellent! I was about to teach exactly this, and you have now asked about it. Good son, the bodhisattva-mahāsattva, in truth, attains nothing at all — this very non-attainment is itself named the four kinds of unimpeded knowledge. Good son, for what reason is non-attainment named 'unimpeded'? Whoever attains something is thereby called 'impeded,' and whoever is impeded is called subject to the four inversions. Good son, the bodhisattva-mahāsattva, being free of the four inversions, thereby attains what is unimpeded — it is for this very reason that the bodhisattva is named 'one who attains nothing at all.'

"Furthermore, good son, non-attainment is itself named wisdom, and the bodhisattva-mahāsattva, having attained this very wisdom, is named 'one who attains nothing at all'; attainment, on the other hand, is named ignorance. The bodhisattva, having forever severed the darkness of ignorance, thereby attains nothing at all — it is for this very reason that the bodhisattva is named 'one who attains nothing at all.'

"Furthermore, good son, non-attainment is itself named the great nirvāṇa, and the bodhisattva-mahāsattva, abiding firmly within this great nirvāṇa, sees no nature or mark in any dharma at all — it is for this very reason that the bodhisattva is named 'one who attains nothing at all.' Attainment, on the other hand, is named the twenty-five states of existence, and the bodhisattva, having forever severed the twenty-five states of existence, attains this great nirvāṇa — it is for this very reason that the bodhisattva is named 'one who attains nothing at all.'

"Furthermore, good son, non-attainment is itself named the Great Vehicle, and the bodhisattva-mahāsattva, abiding in no dharma at all, thereby attains the Great Vehicle — it is for this very reason that the bodhisattva is named 'one who attains nothing at all.' Attainment, on the other hand, is named the path of the śrāvaka or pratyekabuddha, and the bodhisattva, having forever severed the path of the two lesser vehicles, attains the path of buddhahood — it is for this very reason that the bodhisattva is named 'one who attains nothing at all.'

"Furthermore, good son, non-attainment is itself named the Vaipulya scriptures, and the bodhisattva, reciting a scripture of this kind, thereby attains the great nirvāṇa — it is for this very reason that the bodhisattva is named 'one who attains nothing at all.' Attainment, on the other hand, is named the eleven other divisions of the scriptures, which the bodhisattva does not cultivate, expounding purely the Vaipulya scriptures of the Great Vehicle instead — it is for this very reason that the bodhisattva is named 'one who attains nothing at all.'

"Furthermore, good son, non-attainment is itself named empty space, and the world's being without any thing is itself named empty space; the bodhisattva, attaining this very concentration on empty space, sees nothing at all — it is for this very reason that the bodhisattva is named 'one who attains nothing at all.' Attainment, on the other hand, is named the wheel of birth-and-death, and every ordinary being, revolving through birth-and-death, therefore has something seen; the bodhisattva, having forever severed all birth-and-death — it is for this very reason that the bodhisattva is named 'one who attains nothing at all.'

"Furthermore, good son, the bodhisattva-mahāsattva's non-attainment is itself named permanence, bliss, self, and purity, and the bodhisattva-mahāsattva, seeing buddha-nature, thereby attains permanence, bliss, self, and purity — it is for this very reason that the bodhisattva is named 'one who attains nothing at all.' Attainment, on the other hand, is named impermanence, the absence of bliss, the absence of self, and the absence of purity, and the bodhisattva-mahāsattva, having severed this impermanence, absence of bliss, absence of self, and absence of purity — it is for this very reason that the bodhisattva is named 'one who attains nothing at all.'

"Furthermore, good son, non-attainment is itself named the emptiness of the ultimate meaning, and the bodhisattva-mahāsattva, contemplating this emptiness of the ultimate meaning, sees nothing at all — it is for this very reason that the bodhisattva is named 'one who attains nothing at all.' Attainment, on the other hand, is named the five wrong views, and the bodhisattva, having forever severed these five wrong views, thereby attains the emptiness of the ultimate meaning — it is for this very reason that the bodhisattva is named 'one who attains nothing at all.'

"Furthermore, good son, non-attainment is itself named unsurpassed, complete awakening, and the bodhisattva-mahāsattva, at the very moment of attaining unsurpassed, complete awakening, sees nothing at all — it is for this very reason that the bodhisattva is named 'one who attains nothing at all.' Attainment, on the other hand, is named the awakening of the śrāvaka or pratyekabuddha, and the bodhisattva, having forever severed the awakening of the two lesser vehicles — it is for this very reason that the bodhisattva is named 'one who attains nothing at all.'

"Good son, what you have now asked is itself non-attainment, and what I have now taught is itself non-attainment as well. Should there be anything actually attained here, this would be the retinue of Māra, and not my own disciple."

The bodhisattva Kāśyapa said to the Buddha: "World-Honored One, when you teach me this very meaning of a bodhisattva's non-attainment, immeasurable beings sever their own mind that grasps at marks — it was for this very reason that I dared to inquire about the meaning of non-attainment, so that immeasurable beings such as these might leave behind the retinue of Māra and become the Buddha's own disciples."

The bodhisattva Kāśyapa said to the Buddha: "World-Honored One, the Tathāgata once, between the twin sāla trees, spoke this verse for Cunda's sake:

"'What was is now not; what was not is now.
That any dharma should exist across all three times
is simply not possible.'

"World-Honored One, what is the meaning of this?"

The Buddha said: "Good son, I spoke these words for the sake of transforming and saving beings generally, and I spoke them, too, for the sake of the śrāvaka and the pratyekabuddha, and I spoke them, too, for the sake of the Dharma-prince Mañjuśrī — I did not speak this verse solely and specifically for Cunda alone. At that time, Mañjuśrī was himself about to question me about it, and, knowing his mind, I spoke it for his sake as well. Once I had spoken it, Mañjuśrī at once came to understand it fully."

The bodhisattva Kāśyapa said: "World-Honored One, how many people are there, really, like Mañjuśrī, able to understand this meaning? I ask only that the Tathāgata further expound and distinguish it at length for the sake of the great assembly."

"Good son, listen closely, listen closely — I shall now expound and set it forth for you once more. To say 'what was' means this: I, in ages past, had immeasurable affliction, and it was on account of this affliction that, in the present, I did not yet have this Mahāparinirvāṇa. To say 'what was not' means this: I did not, in ages past, have the perfection of wisdom, and it was on account of not having the perfection of wisdom that, in the present, I was fully possessed of every fetter of affliction. Should any śramaṇa, any brahmin, any god, any demon, any Brahmā, or any person say that the Tathāgata, in the past, the future, or the present, has affliction, this is simply not possible.

"Furthermore, good son, to say 'what was' means this: I, in ages past, had a body born from the union of my father and mother, and it was for this reason that, in the present, I did not yet have this subtle and wondrous vajra Dharma-body. To say 'what was not' means this: my body, in ages past, did not have the thirty-two marks and the eighty subsidiary signs, and it was on account of not having, in ages past, the thirty-two marks and the eighty subsidiary signs that, in the present, I was fully afflicted with the four hundred and four diseases. Should any śramaṇa, any brahmin, any god, any demon, any Brahmā, or any person say that the Tathāgata, in the past, the future, or the present, has the suffering of illness, this is simply not possible.

"Furthermore, good son, to say 'what was' means this: I, in ages past, had impermanence, no-self, no bliss, and no purity, and it was on account of having impermanence, no-self, no bliss, and no purity that, in the present, I did not yet have unsurpassed, complete awakening. To say 'what was not' means this: I did not, in ages past, see buddha-nature, and it was on account of not seeing it that I had impermanence, no bliss, no self, and no purity. Should any śramaṇa, any brahmin, any god, any demon, any Brahmā, or any person say that the Tathāgata, in the past, the future, or the present, has impermanence, no bliss, no self, and no purity, this is simply not possible.

"Furthermore, good son, to say 'what was' means this: I, in ages past, had the mind of an ordinary being cultivating austerities, believing this itself would attain unsurpassed, complete awakening, and it was on account of this very belief that, in the present, I was unable to destroy the four demons. To say 'what was not' means this: I did not, in ages past, have the six perfections, and it was on account of not having, in ages past, the six perfections that I cultivated the mind of an ordinary being's austerities, believing this itself would attain unsurpassed, complete awakening. Should any śramaṇa, any brahmin, any god, any demon, any Brahmā, or any person say that the Tathāgata, in the past, the future, or the present, practices austerities, this is simply not possible.

"Furthermore, good son, to say 'what was' means this: I, in ages past, had a body that took in various kinds of food, and it was on account of having this food-dependent body that, in the present, I did not yet have this boundless body. To say 'what was not' means this: I did not, in ages past, have the thirty-seven factors that assist the path, and it was on account of not having, in ages past, these thirty-seven factors that, in the present, I was fully possessed of this food-dependent body. Should any śramaṇa, any brahmin, any god, any demon, any Brahmā, or any person say that the Tathāgata, in the past, the future, or the present, has a body dependent on various kinds of food, this is simply not possible.

"Furthermore, good son, to say 'what was' means this: I, in ages past, had a mind that grasped at every dharma, and it was on account of this very grasping that, in the present, I did not yet have this ultimate concentration on emptiness. To say 'what was not' means this: I did not, in ages past, have the true meaning of the middle way, and it was on account of not having the true meaning of the middle way that I held a grasping mind toward every dharma. Should any śramaṇa, any brahmin, any god, any demon, any Brahmā, or any person say that the Tathāgata, in the past, the future, or the present, teaches every dharma as possessing a fixed mark, this is simply not possible.

"Furthermore, good son, to say 'what was' means this: at the very time I first attained unsurpassed, complete awakening, I had disciples among the śrāvakas of dull faculty, and it was on account of having these dull-faculty śrāvaka disciples that I was unable to expound the real truth of the one vehicle. To say 'what was not' means this: I did not, at that time, yet have disciples of sharp faculty, the elephant-kings among men, the bodhisattva Kāśyapa and others, and it was on account of not having sharp-faculty disciples like Kāśyapa that I opened up and revealed the three vehicles according to what was fitting. Should any śramaṇa, any brahmin, any god, any demon, any Brahmā, or any person say that the Tathāgata, in the past, the future, or the present, expounds only and ultimately the teaching of the three vehicles, this is simply not possible.

"Furthermore, good son, to say 'what was' means this: I originally taught that, three months hence, I would enter parinirvāṇa between the twin sāla trees, and it was for this reason that, in the present, I could not expound this great Vaipulya scripture, this Mahāparinirvāṇa. To say 'what was not' means this: I did not, in ages past, yet have a great bodhisattva such as Mañjuśrī, and it was on account of not having him that, in the present, it is said that the Tathāgata is impermanent. Should any śramaṇa, any brahmin, any god, any demon, any Brahmā, or any person say that the Tathāgata, in the past, the future, or the present, is impermanent, this is simply not possible.

"Good son, the Tathāgata, universally for the sake of every being, though he knows every dharma, at times says he does not know it; though he sees every dharma, at times says he does not see it; a dharma possessed of marks, he at times calls markless; a markless dharma, he at times calls possessed of marks; what is truly impermanent, he at times calls permanent; what is truly permanent, he at times calls impermanent — and it is just the same with self, bliss, and purity. A teaching of three vehicles, he at times calls a single vehicle; a teaching of a single vehicle, he at times, as is fitting, teaches as three. A brief teaching, he at times expands; an expanded teaching, he at times abbreviates. A gravest offense, he at times calls a lesser transgression; a lesser transgression, he at times calls a gravest offense. A transgression, he at times calls no transgression at all; what is no transgression, he at times calls a transgression. A light offense, he at times calls grave; a grave offense, he at times calls light. Why is this? Because the Tathāgata sees clearly into the faculties of beings. Good son, though the Tathāgata teaches in this way, there is, in the end, no falsehood in it at all. Why is this? False speech is itself a transgression, and the Tathāgata has severed every transgression entirely — how, then, could there be any false speech in him at all? Good son, though the Tathāgata never speaks falsely, should he know that a being is able to gain benefit from the Dharma through what appears, on its surface, to be a contrary statement, he will, according to whatever skillful means is fitting, teach in this way for his sake. Good son, every instance of worldly truth is, from the Tathāgata's own standpoint, itself the ultimate truth. Why is this? Every buddha, every world-honored one, teaches worldly truth for the sake of the ultimate truth, and does so in order to cause beings to attain this very ultimate truth — and, should beings be unable to attain this ultimate truth in this way, no buddha would ever, in the end, teach worldly truth at all. Good son, the Tathāgata, at times, expounds worldly truth, and beings suppose that the Buddha is teaching the ultimate truth; and, at times, he expounds the ultimate truth, and beings suppose that the Buddha is teaching worldly truth. This is, then, the profoundest domain of every buddha, not something known by any śrāvaka or pratyekabuddha. Good son, it is for this very reason that you should not, as you did before, raise the objection that the bodhisattva-mahāsattva attains nothing at all. A bodhisattva constantly attains the ultimate truth — how, then, can you object that he attains nothing?"

Kāśyapa said further: "World-Honored One, the ultimate truth is also named the path, is also named bodhi, and is also named nirvāṇa. Should any bodhisattva say that the path, bodhi, and nirvāṇa can be attained, this would itself make them impermanent. Why is this? Whatever is truly permanent cannot be attained at all — just as with empty space, who could ever attain it? World-Honored One, it is like a worldly thing, originally absent and now present, which is called impermanent; the path is just the same: should the path be something that can be attained, it would thereby be called impermanent. Whatever is truly permanent has no attainment and no arising at all — just as with buddha-nature, which has no attainment and no arising. World-Honored One, the path is neither form nor non-form; it is neither long nor short, neither high nor low, neither arisen nor ceased, neither red, white, blue, nor yellow; it is neither existent nor non-existent — how, then, can the Tathāgata say that it can be attained? Bodhi and nirvāṇa are just the same."

The Buddha said: "It is so, it is so. Good son, the path is of two kinds: one permanent, and one impermanent. The mark of bodhi, too, is of two kinds: one permanent, and one impermanent — and it is just the same for nirvāṇa. The path of those who follow other tenets is called impermanent; the path of those within the true teaching is called permanent. The bodhi possessed by the śrāvaka and pratyekabuddha is called impermanent; the bodhi possessed by the bodhisattva and every buddha is called permanent. Liberation from without is called impermanent; liberation from within is called permanent. Good son, the path, bodhi, and nirvāṇa are all, in fact, named permanent. Every being is forever covered over by immeasurable affliction, and, lacking the eye of wisdom, is unable to see them. And yet beings, wishing to see them, cultivate moral discipline, concentration, and wisdom, and, through this very cultivation, come to see the path, bodhi, and nirvāṇa — this is what is meant by a bodhisattva's attaining the path, bodhi, and nirvāṇa. The very nature and mark of the path, in truth, neither arises nor ceases, and it is for this very reason that it cannot be grasped or held. Good son, the path, though it has no visible form to be seen, nor any measure to be known, truly has its own function nonetheless. Good son, it is like the mind of a being: though it is neither form, nor long, nor short, nor coarse, nor subtle, neither bound nor liberated, nor a dharma that can be seen, it, too, truly exists — and it is for this very reason that I once told the elder Sudatta: 'Elder, the mind is the ruler of the city; should you, elder, fail to guard your own mind, you will fail to guard your body and speech as well. Should you guard your mind, you will thereby guard your body and speech. It is because beings fail to guard their own body and speech well that they arrive at the three evil destinies; and it is by guarding their body and speech that beings attain rebirth among gods and men, and nirvāṇa itself. To attain this is called truly real; to fail to attain it is not called truly real.' Good son, the path, bodhi, and nirvāṇa are just the same: they, too, truly exist, and are, too, truly permanent. Were they truly non-existent, how could they ever sever every affliction? It is precisely because they truly exist that every bodhisattva sees and knows them fully and completely.

"Good son, seeing is of two kinds: seeing by inference from a mark, and seeing fully and completely. What is seeing by inference from a mark? It is as when one sees smoke from afar and calls this seeing fire, though one does not, in truth, see the fire itself — yet, though one does not see the fire, this is not false either. One sees a crane in the sky and thereupon says one sees water — though one does not see the water, this is not false either. One sees a flower's leaves and thereupon says one sees its root — though one does not see the root, this is not false either. It is as when a person, seeing a cow's horn from afar amid a hedge, thereupon says he sees a cow — though he does not see the cow itself, this is not false either. One sees a woman who is pregnant and thereupon says one sees an act of desire — though one does not see the act of desire itself, this is not false either. One sees a tree putting forth leaves and thereupon says one sees water — though one does not see the water, this is not false either. One sees clouds and thereupon says one sees rain — though one does not see the rain, this is not false either. One sees an act of the body or of speech and thereupon says one sees the mind — though one does not see the mind itself, this is not false either. This is called seeing by inference from a mark. What is seeing fully and completely? It is like the eye seeing form. Good son, it is as when a person whose own eye-faculty is pure and undamaged directly beholds an āmalaka fruit resting in the palm of his own hand. The bodhisattva-mahāsattva's own full and complete seeing of the path, of bodhi, and of nirvāṇa is just the same. Though he sees in this way, there is, from the very outset, no mark of seeing involved at all.

"Good son, it is through this very cause and condition that I once, in ages past, told Śāriputra: 'Whatever every world — every śramaṇa, every brahmin, every god, every demon, every Brahmā, and every person — does not know, does not see, and does not perceive, only the Tathāgata knows, sees, and perceives entirely, and every bodhisattva does likewise. Śāriputra, whatever the world does know, see, and perceive, I and every bodhisattva likewise know, see, and perceive. Beings of the world, with regard to what they do not know, do not see, and do not perceive, do not even know of themselves that they fail to know, see, or perceive it; and, with regard to what beings of the world do know, see, and perceive, they say of themselves, "I know, I see, I perceive." Śāriputra, the Tathāgata, though he knows, sees, and perceives every single thing entirely, never once says of himself, "I know, I see, I perceive" — and every bodhisattva is just the same. Why is this? Should the Tathāgata make of knowing, seeing, and perceiving some fixed mark to hold onto, one should know that he would not, in that case, be a buddha, a world-honored one, at all, but would be called an ordinary being — and it is just the same for a bodhisattva.'"

The bodhisattva Kāśyapa said: "As the Buddha, the World-Honored One, told Śāriputra — 'whatever the world knows, I, too, know; and whatever the world does not know, I, too, know entirely' — what is the meaning of this?"

"Good son, every world does not know, does not see, and does not perceive buddha-nature at all; and whoever does know, see, and perceive buddha-nature is not called 'the world,' but is called a bodhisattva. Beings of the world, likewise, do not know, do not see, and do not perceive the twelve divisions of the scriptures, the twelve links of dependent origination, the four inversions, the Four Noble Truths, the thirty-seven factors, unsurpassed complete awakening, or this Mahāparinirvāṇa; and whoever does know, see, and perceive these is not called 'the world,' but should be called a bodhisattva. Good son, this is what is meant by what the world does not know, see, or perceive. What, then, does the world know, see, and perceive? Namely, Brahmā, Maheśvara, the eight-armed god, the doctrines of primordial nature, time, atoms, and dharma and non-dharma as a creator-lord, and the two views of the world's own annihilation or eternal persistence, and the teaching that the first dhyāna up through the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception is itself nirvāṇa. Good son, this is what is meant by what the world does know, see, and perceive. The bodhisattva-mahāsattva, with regard to matters of this kind too, both knows, sees, and perceives them; and, the bodhisattva having thus known, seen, and perceived them, should he say that he does not know, see, or perceive them, this would be a falsehood. A dharma of falsehood is itself a transgression, and, through this very transgression, one falls into hell. Good son, should any man or woman, any śramaṇa or brahmin, say that there is no path, no bodhi, and no nirvāṇa, one should know that people of this kind are named icchantikas, the retinue of Māra, and are said to slander the Dharma — and slandering the Dharma in this way is itself called slandering every buddha. A person of this kind is called neither 'the world' nor 'not the world.'"

At that time, Kāśyapa, having heard this teaching, thereupon praised the Buddha in verse:

"'Your great loving-kindness pities every being —
this alone has led me to take refuge in you.
Well do you draw out every poisoned arrow —
this alone earns you the name of the great king of physicians.
What a worldly physician cures may, though healed, arise once more;
but what the Tathāgata cures never, in the end, breaks out again.
The World-Honored One's own nectar-medicine is given to every being;
and beings, having partaken of it, neither die nor are reborn again.
The Tathāgata now, for my own sake, expounds this Mahāparinirvāṇa;
and beings, hearing this secret treasury, at once attain what neither arises nor ceases.'

The bodhisattva Kāśyapa, having spoken this verse, said further to the Buddha: "World-Honored One, as the Buddha has taught it, that the whole world does not know, see, or perceive, while a bodhisattva is entirely able to know, see, and perceive — if a bodhisattva is himself part of the world, one could not then say that the world does not know, see, or perceive while this same bodhisattva is able to know, see, and perceive. And if he is not part of the world, what mark, then, distinguishes him?"

The Buddha said: "Good son, what is called a bodhisattva is both part of the world and not part of the world. Whoever does not know, see, or perceive is called 'the world'; whoever does know, see, and perceive is not called 'the world.' You ask what distinguishes them — I shall now explain. Good son, should any man or woman, upon first hearing this Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, at once give rise to reverent faith and to the mind of unsurpassed, complete awakening, this is, at that point, called 'the world.' A bodhisattva, with regard to whatever the whole world does not know, see, or perceive, is, at this stage, likewise the same as the world in not knowing, seeing, or perceiving it. The bodhisattva, having heard this Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, knows that there is something the world does not know, see, or perceive, which ought to be known, seen, and perceived by a bodhisattva; and, knowing this, he thereupon reflects to himself: 'By what skillful means, then, should I cultivate practice, in order to attain this very knowing, seeing, and perceiving?' He then thinks further to himself: 'I should only cultivate and uphold pure precepts, with a profound and earnest mind.' Good son, the bodhisattva, at that time, through this very cause and condition, in every future place of his own rebirth, has precepts that are forever pure. Good son, the bodhisattva-mahāsattva, through the very purity of his precepts, in every place of his rebirth, is forever free of arrogance and the net of wrong views and doubt, and never once says that the Tathāgata, in the ultimate sense, actually enters parinirvāṇa — this is what is meant by the bodhisattva's cultivating and upholding pure precepts. His precepts thus made pure, he next cultivates meditative concentration; and, through this cultivation of concentration, in every place of his rebirth, he holds right mindfulness without ever forgetting it — namely, that every being, without exception, possesses buddha-nature, and the twelve divisions of the scriptures, and that every buddha, every world-honored one, is permanence, bliss, self, and purity. Every bodhisattva, abiding firmly within this Vaipulya Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, sees buddha-nature entirely, and, holding matters of this kind in mind, never forgets them; and it is through this very cultivation of concentration that he attains the eleven kinds of emptiness — this is what is meant by the bodhisattva's cultivating pure concentration. His precepts and concentration thus complete, he next cultivates pure wisdom; and, through this cultivation of wisdom, he never once reckons that there is a self within the body, a body within the self, that the body is the self, or that the body is not the self — this is what is meant by the bodhisattva's cultivating and practicing pure wisdom. And, through this very cultivation of wisdom, the precepts he upholds become firm and unshakeable. Good son, it is like Mount Sumeru, which is never shaken by the four winds; the bodhisattva-mahāsattva is just the same, never shaken by the four inversions. Good son, the bodhisattva, at that time, knows and sees of himself that the precepts he upholds are utterly unshaken — this is what is meant by what a bodhisattva knows, sees, and perceives, and is not part of the world. Good son, the bodhisattva, seeing that the precepts he upholds are firm and unshaken, holds a mind free of any regret; and, being free of regret, his mind attains joy; and, attaining joy, his mind attains happiness; and, attaining happiness, his mind is thereby at peace; and, his mind being at peace, he attains an unshakeable concentration; and, attaining this unshakeable concentration, he attains true knowing and seeing; and, attaining true knowing and seeing, he becomes weary of and detached from birth-and-death; and, becoming weary of and detached from birth-and-death, he thereupon attains liberation; and, attaining liberation, he clearly sees buddha-nature — this is what is meant by what a bodhisattva knows, sees, and perceives, and is not part of the world. Good son, this is what is meant by what the world does not know, see, or perceive, and yet is what a bodhisattva does know, see, and perceive."

Kāśyapa said further: "How does a bodhisattva cultivate and uphold pure precepts, so that his mind holds no regret at all, and he comes, in the end, to see buddha-nature with full clarity?"

The Buddha said: "Good son, worldly precepts are not called pure. Why is this? Worldly precepts are held for the sake of existence itself, their own nature is unstable, and they are not ultimate — they are unable to benefit every being broadly, and it is for this very reason that they are called impure. Because of this impurity, one holds a mind of regret; because of this regret, the mind has no joy; without joy, there is no happiness; without happiness, there is no peace; without peace, there is no unshakeable concentration; without unshakeable concentration, there is no true knowing and seeing; without true knowing and seeing, there is no weariness or detachment; without weariness or detachment, there is no liberation; without liberation, one does not see buddha-nature; and, not seeing buddha-nature, one is, in the end, unable to attain this Mahāparinirvāṇa at all — this is what is meant by worldly precepts' being impure. Good son, the bodhisattva-mahāsattva's pure precepts are held without grasping even at the mark of a precept, are not held for the sake of existence, are truly ultimate, and are held for the sake of beings — this is what is meant by a bodhisattva's precepts being pure.

"Good son, the bodhisattva-mahāsattva, within these pure precepts, though he does not deliberately wish to give rise to a mind free of regret, this very mind free of regret arises of its own accord. Good son, it is like a person holding a bright mirror: without expecting to see his own face, his own reflected image appears of itself. It is, likewise, like a farmer who plants seed in fine soil: without expecting a shoot to sprout, the shoot sprouts of itself. It is, likewise, like the lighting of a lamp: without expecting the darkness to be dispelled, the darkness is dispelled of itself. Good son, the bodhisattva-mahāsattva who firmly upholds pure precepts is just the same: a mind free of regret arises of its own accord, and, through these very pure precepts, his mind attains joy. Good son, it is like a person of fine appearance, who, seeing his own face, gives rise to joy in his own heart — one who upholds pure precepts is just the same. Good son, a person who breaks the precepts, seeing that his own precepts are impure, gives rise to no joy at all — it is like a person disfigured in body, who, seeing his own face, gives rise to no joy at all; one who breaks the precepts is just the same. Good son, it is like two women herding cattle, one carrying a jar of curds and the other a jar of whey, who go together to the city, wishing to sell them. Along the road, they stumble, and both jars break — and one of them is filled with joy, while the other is filled with sorrow and distress. Upholding the precepts and breaking them are just the same: one who upholds pure precepts has a mind filled with joy, and, his mind filled with joy, he thereupon reflects: 'Every buddha, every tathāgata, has taught, within this Mahāparinirvāṇa, that whoever is able to uphold pure precepts will thereby attain nirvāṇa. I now cultivate and practice pure precepts of this very kind, and I, too, should attain it.' Through this very cause and condition, his mind attains happiness."

Kāśyapa said further: "What difference is there between joy and happiness?"

"Good son, the bodhisattva-mahāsattva, at the moment he does not commit evil, is said to have joy; a mind purely upholding the precepts is called happiness. Good son, the bodhisattva-mahāsattva's own contemplation of birth-and-death is called joy; his seeing of this great nirvāṇa is called happiness. The lower is called joy; the higher is called happiness. Leaving behind what is shared in common with the world is called joy; attaining what is not shared in common with the world is called happiness. Through the very purity of his precepts, his body becomes light and supple, and his speech is free of coarse fault, and the bodhisattva, at that time, whether seeing, hearing, feeling lightly, tasting, touching, or knowing, is entirely free of every evil; and, being free of evil, his mind attains peace; and, attaining peace, he thereby attains still concentration; and, attaining still concentration, he attains true knowing and seeing; and, attaining true knowing and seeing, he becomes weary of and detached from birth-and-death; and, becoming weary of and detached from birth-and-death, he thereupon attains liberation; and, attaining liberation, he attains the seeing of buddha-nature; and, seeing buddha-nature, he attains this great nirvāṇa — this is what is meant by a bodhisattva's pure upholding of the precepts, and is not a worldly precept at all. Why is this? Good son, the pure precepts a bodhisattva-mahāsattva receives are assisted by five dharmas. What are these five? Faith, conscience, shame, good and wise friends, and reverence for the precepts — through these, he is free of the five hindrances. What he sees is pure, since he is free of the five wrong views. His mind holds no net of doubt, since he is free of five kinds of doubt: doubt in the Buddha, doubt in the Dharma, doubt in the Saṅgha, doubt in the precepts, and doubt in heedfulness. The bodhisattva, at that time, thereby attains the five faculties — namely, faith, mindfulness, diligence, concentration, and wisdom. Having attained these five faculties, he attains five kinds of liberation — namely, liberation from form, and so on, up through liberation from consciousness. This is what is meant by a bodhisattva's pure upholding of the precepts, and is not something worldly. Good son, this is what is meant by what the world does not know, does not see, and does not perceive, and yet is what a bodhisattva does know, see, and perceive.

"Good son, should any of my disciples, upholding, reciting, copying, or expounding this Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, break the precepts, and should another person then reproach, disparage, and revile him, saying: 'If the Buddha's own secret treasury, this Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, truly had power, how could it let you break the very precepts you have received? If a person, upholding this Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, breaks the restraining precepts, one should know that this sūtra has no power at all; and, having no power, though one recites it, it brings no benefit at all' — through this very disparagement of the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, immeasurable, boundless beings are further caused to fall into hell. One who upholds this sūtra while breaking the precepts is himself a harmful influence upon beings, and is not my own disciple, but is, rather, the retinue of Māra. I do not permit a person of this kind to uphold this scripture at all — it would be better for him not to receive it, not to uphold it, and not to cultivate it, than to receive, uphold, and cultivate it while breaking the precepts. Good son, should any of my disciples uphold, recite, copy, or expound this Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, he should keep his own body and mind upright, taking great care never to engage in frivolous conduct or reckless, impulsive action — the body's frivolity is called reckless conduct, and the mind's frivolity is called impulsive craving. A mind that craves further existence is called impulsive; a body that performs unwholesome acts is called frivolous. Should any of my disciples crave further existence and perform unwholesome acts, he should not uphold this scripture of the Mahāparinirvāṇa of the Great Vehicle at all. Should there be one who upholds this sūtra in this way, another person will reproach him, saying: 'If the Buddha's own secret treasury, this Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, truly had power, how could it let you crave further existence and perform unwholesome acts? If one who upholds this sūtra craves further existence and performs unwholesome acts, one should know that this sūtra has no power at all; and, having no power, though one upholds it, it brings no benefit at all' — through this very disparagement of the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, immeasurable, boundless beings are further caused to fall into hell. One who upholds this sūtra while craving further existence and performing unwholesome acts is himself a harmful influence upon beings, and is not my own disciple, but is, rather, the retinue of Māra.

"Furthermore, good son, should any of my disciples uphold, recite, copy, or expound this Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, he should never teach it at an improper time, never teach it in an improper country, never teach it unasked, never teach it with a careless mind, never teach it indiscriminately in every place, never teach it while praising himself, never teach it while disparaging another, never teach it in a way that destroys the true Dharma, and never teach it merely to fan the flames of worldly fame. Good son, should any of my disciples, upholding this sūtra, teach it at an improper time, or on up through teaching it merely to fan the flames of worldly fame, another person will reproach him, saying: 'If the Buddha's own secret treasury, this Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, truly had power, how could it let you teach it at an improper time, or on up through fanning the flames of worldly fame? If one who upholds this sūtra teaches it in this way, one should know that this sūtra has no power at all; and, having no power, though one upholds it, it brings no benefit at all' — through this very disparagement of the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, immeasurable beings are caused to fall into hell. One who upholds this sūtra while teaching it at an improper time, or on up through fanning the flames of worldly fame, is himself a harmful influence upon beings, and is not my own disciple, but is, rather, the retinue of Māra. Good son, should one wish to uphold this sūtra, to teach this Mahāparinirvāṇa, to teach buddha-nature, to teach the Tathāgata's own secret treasury, to teach the Great Vehicle, to teach the Vaipulya scriptures, to teach the vehicle of the śrāvaka, to teach the vehicle of the pratyekabuddha, to teach liberation, or to see buddha-nature himself, he should first purify his own body; and, through the very purity of his body, no one will reproach him; and, no one reproaching him, immeasurable people will thereby give rise to pure faith in this Mahāparinirvāṇa; and, faith having arisen in them, they will revere this sūtra, and, upon hearing even a single verse, a single phrase, a single character of it, or hearing the one who teaches it, will thereby give rise to the mind of unsurpassed, complete awakening. One should know that a person of this kind is truly a good and wise influence upon beings, and not a harmful one; he is my own disciple, and not the retinue of Māra — this is what is meant by a bodhisattva's not being part of the world. Good son, this is what is meant by what the world does not know, does not see, and does not perceive, and yet is what a bodhisattva does know, see, and perceive."