Does Milk Contain Curd?

At that time, Lion's Roar Bodhisattva Mahāsattva said to the Buddha: "World-Honored One, as was said before, the amra fruit gives a simile for four kinds of people: one whose conduct is refined, yet whose mind is not upright and true; one whose mind is refined, yet whose conduct is not upright and true; one whose mind is refined, and whose conduct, too, is upright and true; and one whose mind is not refined, and whose conduct, too, is not upright and true. How, then, can one come to know which of the first two kinds a given person is? As the Buddha himself has said, though one relies upon these two categories, one still cannot come to know for certain." The Buddha said: "Excellent, excellent! Good son, the amra fruit's two harder kinds of people are, in truth, difficult indeed to know. Because they are so difficult to know, I teach, within my own scriptures: one ought to dwell together with such a person; should dwelling together not reveal it, one ought to remain with him for a long time; should remaining with him for a long time not reveal it, one ought to apply wisdom; should wisdom not reveal it, one ought to observe deeply — and it is through this deep observation that one comes to know whether he upholds the precepts or breaks them. Good son, it is only once these four things — dwelling together, remaining long, applying wisdom, and deep observation — are all complete that one comes to know whether the precepts are upheld or broken. Good son, the precepts are of two kinds, and precept-keeping, likewise, is of two kinds: final, and not yet final. There is a person who upholds the precepts on account of some particular cause and condition — the wise ought to observe of this person whether he upholds them for the sake of gain, or upholds them all the way to their final completion. Good son, the Tathāgata's own precept-keeping has no cause or condition behind it at all, and it is for this very reason that it may be named final precept-keeping. It is for this very reason that, though a bodhisattva is harmed by every kind of evil being, he gives rise to no resentment or obstruction at all, and it is for this very reason that the Tathāgata may be named one who has accomplished ultimate precept-keeping, final precept-keeping. Good son, I once dwelt together with Śāriputra and five hundred disciples in the great city of Campā, in the land of Magadha. At that time, there was a hunter pursuing a single dove — the dove, terrified, fled into Śāriputra's own shadow, and yet still trembled there like a plantain tree; only upon entering my own shadow did its body and mind find peace, and its terror was entirely removed. One should therefore know that the Tathāgata, the World-Honored One, possesses final precept-keeping to such a degree that even the mere shadow of his body carries this very power. Good son, precept-keeping that is not yet final cannot even attain the fruit of the śrāvaka or the pratyekabuddha — how much less could it attain unsurpassed, complete awakening?

"There are, further, two kinds: for the sake of gain, and for the sake of the true Dharma. Should one uphold the precepts for the sake of gain, know that this precept-keeping does not see buddha-nature or the Tathāgata — though he may hear the name of buddha-nature and of the Tathāgata, this still cannot be named seeing through hearing. Should one uphold the precepts for the sake of the true Dharma, know that this precept-keeping is able to see buddha-nature and the Tathāgata — this is named seeing with the eye, and also named seeing through hearing. There are, further, two kinds: roots deep and hard to uproot, and roots shallow and easily shaken. One who is able to cultivate the three samādhis of emptiness, signlessness, and wishlessness has roots deep and hard to uproot. One who does not cultivate these three samādhis, though he may still cultivate the twenty-five states of existence, has roots shallow and easily shaken. There are, further, two kinds: for one's own sake, and for the sake of beings. One who upholds them for the sake of beings is able to see buddha-nature and the Tathāgata. One who upholds the precepts is, further, of two kinds: one whose very nature is able to uphold them of itself, and one who requires the instruction of others. Should one, having received the precepts, pass through countless lifetimes without ever once lapsing — even encountering an evil land, an evil companion, an evil time, an evil age, hearing wicked and evil teachings, and dwelling among those of wrong view — and yet, at such a time, though there be no formal precept to hold him to it, still cultivate and uphold them exactly as before, violating nothing at all, this is named one whose very nature is able to uphold them of itself. Should one instead receive the precepts only through a formal assembly of monks and the fourfold proclamation, and, having received them, still need to rely upon the guidance of his preceptor, his teachers, his fellow students, and good friends in order to know how to proceed, and to be fully equipped with proper bearing in listening to and teaching the Dharma, this is named one who requires the instruction of others. Good son, one whose very nature is able to uphold the precepts sees buddha-nature and the Tathāgata with the eye, and this is also named seeing through hearing. The precepts are, further, of two kinds: the śrāvaka's precepts, and the bodhisattva's precepts. From the very first arising of the mind of awakening all the way through the attainment of unsurpassed, complete awakening is named the bodhisattva's precepts. Contemplating the bare skeleton all the way through to the attainment of the fruit of arhatship is named the śrāvaka's precepts. Should one uphold the śrāvaka's precepts, know that this person does not see buddha-nature or the Tathāgata. Should one uphold the bodhisattva's precepts, know that this person attains unsurpassed, complete awakening, and is able to see buddha-nature, the Tathāgata, and nirvāṇa."

Lion's Roar Bodhisattva said: "World-Honored One, for what cause and condition does one uphold the precepts?" The Buddha said: "Good son, for the sake of the mind's own freedom from regret. Why freedom from regret? For the sake of receiving bliss. Why receiving bliss? For the sake of departure. Why departure? For the sake of tranquility. Why tranquility? For the sake of meditative concentration. Why meditative concentration? For the sake of true seeing and knowing. Why true seeing and knowing? For the sake of seeing every fault of birth-and-death. Why seeing the faults of birth-and-death? For the sake of the mind's own freedom from craving and attachment. Why the mind's freedom from craving and attachment? For the sake of attaining liberation. Why attaining liberation? For the sake of attaining the unsurpassed great nirvāṇa. Why attaining the great nirvāṇa? For the sake of attaining the dharma of permanence, bliss, self, and purity. Why attaining permanence, bliss, self, and purity? For the sake of attaining the unborn and the unceasing. Why attaining the unborn and the unceasing? For the sake of seeing buddha-nature. It is for this very reason that the bodhisattva's very nature is able, of itself, to uphold the final, pure precepts. Good son, though a precept-keeping monk does not vow or seek a mind free of regret, this freedom from regret is attained naturally, of itself. Why is this? Because the very nature of dharmas is exactly so. Though he does not seek bliss, departure, tranquility, or true and real seeing and knowing, seeing the fault of birth-and-death, his mind is free of craving and attachment. Liberation, nirvāṇa, permanence, bliss, self, purity, the unborn and the unceasing, and the seeing of buddha-nature are all attained naturally, of themselves. Why is this? Because the very nature of dharmas is exactly so."

Lion's Roar Bodhisattva said: "World-Honored One, if the fruit of freedom from regret is attained through the cause of precept-keeping, and the fruit of nirvāṇa is attained through the cause of liberation, then the precepts have no cause of their own, while nirvāṇa has a fruit. If the precepts have no cause, they should be named permanent; if nirvāṇa has a cause, it should be impermanent. If this is so, then nirvāṇa would be something originally absent and now present — and, if it is originally absent and now present, it is thereby impermanent, exactly like a kindled lamp. If nirvāṇa is like this, how could it possibly be named self, bliss, and purity?" The Buddha said: "Good son, excellent, excellent! Because you have, in ages past, planted every kind of wholesome root at the feet of countless buddhas, you are able to ask the Tathāgata a question of such profound meaning as this. Good son, it is because you have not lost your original recollection that you are able to ask in just this way. I recall that, in ages past, beyond countless kalpas, there appeared in the world, in the city of Vārāṇasī, a buddha named Well-Attained. At that time, that buddha, across three hundred million years, proclaimed this very Great Nirvāṇa Sūtra, and I, together with you, was present in that very assembly, and I put this very question to that buddha. At that time, the Tathāgata, for the sake of beings, entered proper absorption in samādhi, and did not yet answer this question. Excellent, great being, that you are able to recall this very event from so long ago! Listen closely, listen closely, and I shall now explain it for you. The precepts, too, have a cause — namely, listening to the true Dharma. Listening to the true Dharma, too, has a cause — namely, drawing near to a good friend. Drawing near to a good friend, too, has a cause — namely, faith. Faith, too, has a cause, and this cause is of two kinds: listening to the Dharma, and reflecting on its meaning. Good son, faith has listening to the Dharma as its cause, and listening to the Dharma has faith as its cause — these two dharmas are thus both cause and cause-of-cause, both fruit and fruit-of-fruit. Good son, it is like two jars propped up leaning against one another, each holding the other up as both cause and effect, unable to be separated from one another. Good son, it is just as ignorance conditions formations, and formations condition ignorance — this pairing of ignorance and formations is thus both cause and cause-of-cause, both fruit and fruit-of-fruit; and, all the way up to birth conditioning old age and death, and old age and death conditioning birth, this pairing of birth and old-age-and-death is thus, likewise, both cause and cause-of-cause, both fruit and fruit-of-fruit. Good son, that which is able to produce birth cannot produce itself — because it cannot produce itself, it is through a further birth that this birth is itself produced; yet this further birth, too, cannot produce itself, and must, in turn, rely upon a birth to be produced. It is for this very reason that these two births are thus both cause and cause-of-cause, both fruit and fruit-of-fruit. Good son, faith and listening to the Dharma are exactly the same.

"Good son, that which is a fruit and not a cause is named the great nirvāṇa. Why is it named a fruit? Because it is the supreme fruit, the fruit of the śramaṇa, the fruit of the brahmin, the severing of birth-and-death, and the destruction of affliction — it is for these reasons that it is named a fruit. Because it is what every affliction is censured for the sake of, nirvāṇa is named a fruit, and affliction is named the fault-of-faults. Good son, nirvāṇa has no cause at all, and yet its own essence is a fruit. Why is this? Because it is without arising or ceasing, without any activity, not a conditioned thing, but the unconditioned itself; because it is permanent and unchanging, without any location, and without beginning or end. Good son, if nirvāṇa had a cause, it could not be named nirvāṇa at all — 'vāṇa' means cause, and 'nir' means absence; because it is without any cause at all, it is therefore named nirvāṇa." Lion's Roar Bodhisattva said: "As the Buddha has taught, that nirvāṇa is without cause is not, I think, correct. Should one speak of 'absence,' this must accord with one of six meanings: first, absence named for what is, in the end, utterly nonexistent — as when every dharma is said to be without self or without anything belonging to a self; second, absence named for what is merely absent at a given time — as when people say a river or pond is 'without water,' or that there is 'no sun or moon'; third, absence named for scarcity — as when people say that food with little salt is 'without salt,' or that a sweet drink with little sugar is 'without sweetness'; fourth, absence named for the failure to receive something — as when a caṇḍāla, unable to receive and uphold the brahmin's own teaching, is therefore said to be 'without brahminhood'; fifth, absence named for having received an evil teaching — as when people say that one who has received an evil teaching cannot be named a śramaṇa or a brahmin, and is therefore said to be 'without any śramaṇa or brahmin' in him; sixth, absence named for the lack of a contrasting opposite — as when the absence of white is named black, and the absence of light is named darkness. World-Honored One, nirvāṇa is exactly the same: it is merely absent of a cause at a given time, and it is for this reason that it is named nirvāṇa."

The Buddha said: "Good son, of these six meanings you have just given, why do you not draw upon the first — the utterly nonexistent — to illustrate nirvāṇa, and instead take up the merely-absent-at-a-given-time? Good son, the very essence of nirvāṇa is utterly without a cause at all, exactly like the absence of self or of anything belonging to a self. Good son, worldly dharmas and nirvāṇa can, in the end, never be set against one another as parallel cases, and it is for this reason that none of your six examples can serve as a fitting simile. Good son, every worldly dharma is, without exception, without any self at all, and yet this very nirvāṇa truly possesses a self — it is for this very reason that nirvāṇa is without cause, and yet its own essence is a fruit; and it is itself a cause and not a fruit, and this is what is named buddha-nature. Because it is not produced by any cause, it is a cause and not a fruit; because it is not the fruit of the śramaṇa's own path, it is named not-a-fruit. Why, then, is it named a cause? Because it is a revealing cause. Good son, cause is of two kinds: the generative cause, and the revealing cause. That which is able to produce a dharma is named the generative cause; a lamp, which is able to reveal an object, is named the revealing cause. Affliction and every fetter is named a generative cause; a being's own parents are named a revealing cause. Grain seed and the like is named a generative cause; earth, water, and manure are named a revealing cause. There is, further, a generative cause — namely, the six perfections, in relation to unsurpassed, complete awakening. There is, further, a revealing cause — namely, buddha-nature, in relation to unsurpassed, complete awakening. There is, further, a revealing cause — namely, the six perfections, in relation to buddha-nature. There is, further, a generative cause — namely, the Śūraṅgama samādhi, in relation to unsurpassed, complete awakening. There is, further, a revealing cause — namely, the eightfold noble path, in relation to unsurpassed, complete awakening. There is, further, a generative cause — namely, faith, in relation to the six perfections."

Lion's Roar Bodhisattva said: "World-Honored One, as the Buddha has taught, that one sees the Tathāgata and buddha-nature — what, exactly, does this mean? World-Honored One, the Tathāgata's own body has no bodily appearance at all — it is neither long nor short, neither white nor black, has no location, does not dwell within the three realms, is not a conditioned mark, and is not known by the eye-consciousness — how, then, could it possibly be seen? Buddha-nature is exactly the same." The Buddha said: "Good son, the buddha-body is of two kinds: permanent, and impermanent. The impermanent body is manifested through skillful means, for the sake of delivering every being — this is named seeing with the eye. The permanent body is the Tathāgata's, the World-Honored One's, own liberated body — this, too, is named seeing with the eye, and also named seeing through hearing. Buddha-nature, too, is of two kinds: visible, and invisible. The visible is seen by the bodhisattva of the ten abidings and by every buddha, every world-honored one. The invisible is not seen by any ordinary being. Seeing with the eye means that the bodhisattva of the ten abidings and every tathāgata sees, with the eye, the buddha-nature possessed by beings. Seeing through hearing means that every being, and the bodhisattva of the ninth abiding, hears that buddha-nature exists. The Tathāgata's own body is, further, of two kinds: form, and not-form. Form is the Tathāgata's own liberation; not-form is because the Tathāgata has forever severed every mark of form. Buddha-nature, too, is of two kinds: form, and not-form. Form is unsurpassed, complete awakening itself; not-form describes the ordinary being, up through the bodhisattva of the ten abidings — the bodhisattva of the ten abidings sees it without complete clarity, and it is for this reason that it is named not-form. Good son, buddha-nature is, further, of two kinds: form, and not-form. Form describes the buddhas and bodhisattvas; not-form describes every ordinary being. Form is named seeing with the eye; not-form is named seeing through hearing. Buddha-nature is neither internal nor external — yet, though it is neither internal nor external, it is not thereby lost or destroyed, and it is for this reason that every being, without exception, is said to possess buddha-nature."

Lion's Roar Bodhisattva said: "World-Honored One, as the Buddha has taught, every being, without exception, possesses buddha-nature, just as milk contains curd — and the buddha-nature of Vajrapāṇi and of every buddha is like pure ghee. How, then, can the Tathāgata teach that buddha-nature is neither internal nor external?" The Buddha said: "Good son, I, too, do not teach that milk contains curd — it is only because curd is produced from milk that it is said to 'have' curd." "World-Honored One, everything that is produced has its own proper season." "Good son, at the time of milk, there is no curd at all, nor is there fresh butter, clarified butter, or ghee — every being also takes it simply to be milk, and it is for this reason that I say milk does not contain curd. Were it truly present, why could it not bear two names at once? — just as a single person skilled in two crafts is called both goldsmith and blacksmith. At the time of curd, there is no milk, fresh butter, clarified butter, or ghee at all — beings likewise take it simply to be curd, not milk, not fresh or clarified butter, and not ghee — exactly the same. Good son, cause is of two kinds: the primary cause, and the conditional cause. The primary cause is as milk producing curd; the conditional cause is as the curdling agent and warmth. It is only because curd is produced from milk that milk is said to 'have' the nature of curd."

Lion's Roar Bodhisattva said: "World-Honored One, if milk has no nature of curd at all, then neither does a horn — why, then, does curd not come from a horn?" "Good son, a horn, too, produces curd. Why is this? I have already said that the conditional cause is of two kinds: the curdling agent, and warmth. A horn's own nature is warm, and it, too, is therefore able to produce curd." Lion's Roar said: "World-Honored One, if a horn is able to produce curd, why does one who seeks curd seek out milk, and not take a horn instead?" The Buddha said: "Good son, it is for this very reason that I speak of the primary cause and the conditional cause." Lion's Roar Bodhisattva said: "If milk originally has no nature of curd at all, and curd only comes to exist now — milk, likewise, originally has no amra tree in it at all, so why, then, does an amra tree not grow from it? Both are equally absent to begin with." "Good son, milk is, in fact, able to produce an amra tree — should one water it with milk, it grows five feet taller within a single night. It is for this very reason that I speak of these two causes. Good son, were every dharma produced by a single cause alone, one could well raise the objection: why, then, can milk not produce an amra tree? Good son, it is just as the four great elements serve as the cause and condition for every form, and yet each form remains distinct, each entirely different from the others. It is for this very reason that milk does not produce an amra tree." "World-Honored One, as the Buddha has taught, there are these two causes, the primary and the conditional — as what kind of cause is a being's own buddha-nature to be understood?" "Good son, a being's own buddha-nature, too, has these two kinds of cause: the primary cause, and the conditional cause. The primary cause is every being himself; the conditional cause is the six perfections."

Lion's Roar said: "World-Honored One, I now know for certain that milk possesses the nature of curd. Why is this? I observe that, in the world, those who seek curd take only milk, and never take water instead — one should therefore know that milk possesses the nature of curd." "Good son, as you have asked, this is, I think, not correct. Why is this? Every being who wishes to see his own facial reflection takes up a knife-blade to do so." Lion's Roar said: "World-Honored One, it is for this very reason that milk possesses the nature of curd — for, if a knife-blade contained no facial image at all, why would one take it up at all?" The Buddha said: "Good son, if this knife-blade truly, fixedly contained a facial image, why does it appear distorted — long when held upright, and wide when held sideways? If it is one's own face, why does it appear long? If it is another's face, how could it be called an image of one's own face? And if, in dependence on one's own face, one is seeing another's face, why does one never see the face of a donkey or a horse in it instead?" Lion's Roar said: "World-Honored One, it is because the light of the eye reaches all the way to the blade that the face appears long."

The Buddha said: "Good son, this light of the eye, in truth, never reaches the blade at all. Why is this? Because things both near and far are seen at one and the same time, and because nothing lying in between is ever seen at all. Good son, if the light reaching an object were what allowed it to be seen, then every being, upon seeing fire, would see it because the light reached it — why, then, is he not burned? It is like one who, seeing a white object far off, cannot help but wonder: is it a crane? A banner? A person? A tree? If the light truly reaches its object, how could one see an object inside crystal, or a fish or stone at the bottom of a deep pool? And, if seeing does not require the light to reach its object, why, then, can one see an object inside crystal, and yet not see a color on the far side of a wall? It is for this reason that to say the eye's light reaches the blade and thereby sees a long face is, I think, not correct. Good son, as you yourself have said, if milk possesses curd, why does one who sells milk take only the price of milk, and never additionally charge for the curd? One who sells a mare takes only the price of the mare, and never additionally charges for her foal. Good son, a person in this world, lacking any child, seeks out a bride for himself — should this woman become pregnant, she still cannot yet be called 'mother.' Should one say that, because she already possesses the nature of a child within her, she should therefore be sought in marriage on that account, this is, I think, not correct. Why is this? If she truly possessed the nature of a child, she ought also to possess the nature of a grandchild — and, were there truly a grandchild present, this grandchild and the child would then be siblings to one another. Why is this? Because they would have been born from the very same womb. It is for this very reason that I say a woman does not possess the nature of a child within her. And, if milk truly possessed the nature of curd, why does one not see all five flavors in it at one and the same time? And if a tree seed truly contained within it a nyagrodha tree fifty feet tall, why does one not see, all at one time, its sprout, stem, branches, leaves, flowers, and fruit, each in its own distinct form and color? Good son, milk's color, taste, and fruit each change with the season, and this is true of ghee as well — how, then, could one possibly say that milk possesses the nature of curd?"

"Good son, it is like a man who, though he will not drink ghee until tomorrow, already today complains of its rank smell — to say that milk definitely already possesses the nature of curd is exactly the same kind of error. Good son, it is like a man who, having brush, paper, and ink, combines them to form written characters — yet this paper does not, in itself, originally contain these characters; it is only because they are originally absent that they must be formed through borrowed conditions. Were they originally present, what need would there be for these many conditions at all? It is like blue and yellow combining to form green — one should know that neither of these two colors originally contains the conditioned nature of green within it; were it originally present, what need would there be for this combination at all? Good son, it is like a being who obtains his very life through food — and yet this food, in truth, contains no life within it at all. Were life originally present within it, then, even before it was eaten, the food itself would already have to be alive. Good son, no dharma at all originally possesses any fixed nature — it is for this very reason that I speak this verse: 'What was not, is now present; what was, is now absent. That a dharma should exist across all three time-periods at once could not possibly be so.' Good son, every dharma, without exception, arises through causes and conditions, and ceases through causes and conditions. Good son, were buddha-nature already, internally present within every being, then every being, without exception, ought already to possess a buddha-body, exactly as I do now. A being's own buddha-nature can never be broken, destroyed, dragged away, seized, bound, or fettered. It is like the empty space that exists within every being: every being, without exception, possesses this empty space, and yet, because it offers no obstruction at all, no being sees for himself that he possesses this very space. Were a being to be entirely without empty space, he could not go or come, walk, stand, sit, or lie down, nor could he be born or grow at all — it is for this very reason that, within my own scriptures, I teach that every being possesses the realm of empty space, and this realm of empty space is what is named empty space itself. A being's own buddha-nature is exactly the same: even the bodhisattva of the ten abidings is able to see only a little of it, as one glimpses a vajra jewel. Good son, a being's own buddha-nature is the very domain of every buddha, and is not something known by any śrāvaka or pratyekabuddha. It is only because every being fails to see buddha-nature that he is forever bound by affliction, turning endlessly through birth-and-death; and it is only through seeing buddha-nature that no affliction or fetter is able to bind him any longer, that he is liberated from birth-and-death, and attains the great nirvāṇa."

Lion's Roar Bodhisattva said: "World-Honored One, every being possesses this very buddha-nature-ness, just as milk possesses the nature of curd. If milk has no nature of curd at all, why does the Buddha teach that there are two kinds of cause — the primary cause and the conditional cause? The conditional cause is, first, the curdling agent, and, second, warmth — and empty space, having no such nature at all, therefore has no conditional cause of its own." The Buddha said: "Good son, if milk truly, fixedly possessed the nature of curd, what need would there be for any conditional cause at all?" Lion's Roar Bodhisattva said: "World-Honored One, it is precisely because this nature is already present that a conditional cause is needed — why is this? Because it is needed only to make it manifest and seen — the conditional cause is itself none other than the revealing cause. World-Honored One, it is like objects already present in the dark: it is only in order to see them that a lamp is lit to reveal them — were they not originally present at all, what would the lamp's light possibly be revealing? It is like a pot already present in clay, which therefore requires a potter, water, a wheel, cord, and a rod to serve as its revealing cause; or a nyagrodha tree already present in its seed, which requires soil, water, and manure to serve as its revealing cause. The curdling agent and warmth within milk are exactly the same, requiring only a revealing cause to manifest what is already there. It is for this reason that, though the nature is already present beforehand, it still requires the aid of a revealing cause before it can be seen — and it is for this very reason that one may know for certain that milk already possesses the nature of curd beforehand." "Good son, if milk truly, fixedly possessed the nature of curd, this would itself already be a revealing cause. And, if it is itself already a revealing cause, what further need would there be to reveal it at all? Good son, if this is a revealing cause, and its very nature is to reveal, it ought forever to reveal itself; and, if it cannot reveal itself, how could it possibly reveal anything else? Should you say that a revealing cause is of two natures — one that reveals itself, and one that reveals another — this, I think, is not correct. Why is this? A revealing cause is a single thing — how, then, could it be of two kinds? Were it truly of two kinds, milk, too, ought to be of two kinds. And, if milk itself bears no such twofold characteristic at all, how, then, could a revealing cause alone possess these two?"

Lion's Roar said: "World-Honored One, it is like people saying, 'I, together with seven others, make eight' — a revealing cause is exactly the same, revealing both itself and another." The Buddha said: "Good son, if a revealing cause were like this, it would then not be a revealing cause at all. Why is this? It is the counter who is able to count both his own form and another's, and it is on this account that one may say 'eight' — this form itself has, of itself, no capacity to reveal at all; it is only because it lacks this very capacity that an intelligent nature is needed at all in order to count self and other. It is for this reason that a revealing cause can neither reveal itself, nor reveal another. Good son, if every being already possesses buddha-nature, why does he still need to cultivate immeasurable merit at all? Should you say that this very cultivation is itself the revealing cause, this is already the same error as the ruined curd. Should you say that the fruit is already, fixedly present within the cause, then moral discipline, concentration, and wisdom could never increase at all — yet I observe that people in the world, originally without any precepts, concentration, or wisdom, gradually increase in these very things once they have received instruction from a teacher. Should you say that a teacher's own instruction is itself the revealing cause, then, at the very moment of that instruction, the one receiving it does not yet possess any precepts, concentration, or wisdom at all. If this instruction is truly a revealing cause, it ought only to reveal what is not yet present — how, then, could it possibly reveal precepts, concentration, and wisdom in such a way as to cause them to increase?" Lion's Roar Bodhisattva said: "World-Honored One, if there is no revealing cause at all, how, then, can one speak of 'having milk' and 'having curd' at all?" "Good son, there are, in general, three kinds of answer given in the world to a difficult question: the redirected answer, as in what was said earlier — why is a precept so named? Because of freedom from regret, and so on, up through the attainment of the great nirvāṇa; the silent answer, as when a certain brahmin ascetic once came and asked me whether the self is permanent, and I remained silent; and the answer given in doubt, as within this very sūtra — if a revealing cause is of two kinds, why, then, can milk not likewise be of two kinds? Good son, I shall now give you a redirected answer. Just as people in the world say that milk and curd 'exist' because they are certain to be obtained, buddha-nature is exactly the same: a being is said to 'possess' buddha-nature because it is certain to be seen."

Lion's Roar said: "World-Honored One, as the Buddha has taught, this, I think, is not correct. The past has already ceased, and the future has not yet arrived — how, then, can either be named 'existent'? Should you say that what is certain to come into being can already be named 'existent,' this, too, is not correct — for, in the world, when people see that a couple has no children, they simply say they have no child. If every being, in truth, has no buddha-nature at all, how, then, can it be taught that every being, without exception, possesses buddha-nature?" The Buddha said: "Good son, the past is named 'existent' in this way: it is like planting an orange seed — the sprout arises and the seed itself ceases, and this sprout, too, is sweet, all the way through to the fruit it eventually bears, which is likewise sweet in taste, until it fully ripens and only then turns sour. Good son, this very sour taste was entirely absent in the seed, the sprout, and even the newly formed fruit — it is only once the fruit reaches its own proper ripening that this form, color, and appearance gives rise to this sour taste; and, though this sour taste was originally absent and is now present, it does not arise apart from its own original seed. This original seed, though it has already passed away, may therefore still be named 'existent' — and it is for this very reason that the past may be named 'existent.' How, then, may the future also be named 'existent'? It is like a man who plants sesame — someone asks him: 'Why do you plant this?' He answers: 'Because there is oil in it.' Though there is, in truth, no oil present yet, once the sesame has ripened, its seeds are gathered, steamed, pounded, and pressed, and only then is the oil actually extracted — one should know that this man has spoken no falsehood at all. It is for this very reason that this is named 'future existence.' How, then, may the past also be named 'existent' in another sense? Good son, it is like a man who, in private, curses the king — years pass, and only then does the king come to hear of it. Having heard of it, he asks: 'Why did you curse me?' The man answers: 'Great king, I did not curse you at all — why is this? Because the one who cursed you has long since ceased to exist.' The king says: 'The one who cursed me — his self, his very body, both still exist even now — how could you say he has ceased to exist?' — and, on account of this very affair, the man loses his own life. Good son, though this self and this body, in the philosophical sense the man intended, are, in truth, absent, the fruit of his own past action does not thereby cease at all — and this, too, is what is named 'past existence.' How, then, may the future also be named 'existent' in this further sense? It is like a man who goes to a potter's workshop and asks whether a pot is to be had there — the potter answers that a pot is indeed to be had, though, in truth, no pot has yet been made at all; it is only because clay is present that he says a pot is to be had, and one should know that this potter, too, has spoken no falsehood at all. Milk's possession of curd, and a being's own possession of buddha-nature, are exactly the same. One who wishes to see buddha-nature ought to observe its own proper season and its own form and color — it is for this very reason that I teach that every being, without exception, possesses buddha-nature, and this is, in truth, no falsehood at all."

Lion's Roar said: "If every being truly has no buddha-nature at all, how, then, could he possibly attain unsurpassed, complete awakening? It is precisely through a primary cause that a being is able to attain unsurpassed, complete awakening — and what is this primary cause? It is none other than buddha-nature. World-Honored One, if a nyagrodha seed contained no nyagrodha tree within it at all, why would it be named a nyagrodha seed, rather than a khadira seed? World-Honored One, just as the Gautama lineage can never be called the Ādityā lineage, nor the Ādityā lineage ever be called the Gautama lineage, a nyagrodha seed, likewise, can never be called a khadira seed, nor a khadira seed ever be called a nyagrodha seed — exactly as the World-Honored One himself can never depart from his own Gautama lineage. A being's own buddha-nature is exactly the same — it is for this very reason that one should know that every being, without exception, possesses buddha-nature."

The Buddha said: "Good son, to say that a nyagrodha tree is already present within its seed is, I think, not correct. Were it truly present, why, then, is it not seen? Good son, an object in the world may fail to be seen for any of eight reasons: it is too distant to be seen, as a bird's track across the sky; it is too near to be seen, as one's own eyelash; it is destroyed and thus not seen, as with a sense-faculty that has decayed; it is not seen on account of a scattered, distracted mind; it is too subtle to be seen, as a fine speck of dust; it is obstructed and thus not seen, as a star behind a cloud; it is too numerous to be seen distinctly, as a single grain of sesame lost within a pile of rice; and it is not distinguished for being too similar to what surrounds it, as one bean lost within a heap of beans. A nyagrodha tree does not resemble any of these eight causes at all — were it truly present, why, then, would it not be seen? Should you say that it is not seen because it is both subtle and obstructed, this, I think, is not correct. Why is this? Because a tree's own characteristic form is coarse, not subtle. And, were its nature truly subtle, how, then, could it possibly grow larger at all? And, were it truly unseen merely because it is obstructed, it ought to remain forever unseen — yet, though it originally has no coarse mark at all, one now sees it in a coarse form. One should therefore know that this coarse form originally had no nature of its own at all; and this seeing, too, originally had no nature of its own — one should know that this seeing, too, originally has no fixed nature. The seed is exactly the same: it originally has no tree within it at all, and now it comes to have one — what fault could there possibly be in this?"

Lion's Roar said: "As the Buddha has taught, there are two kinds of cause: the primary cause, and the revealing cause. It is through soil, water, and manure serving as its revealing cause that a nyagrodha seed causes what is subtle to become coarse." The Buddha said: "Good son, if it were already originally present, what need would there be for a revealing cause at all? And, if it originally has no such nature at all, what, then, could a revealing cause possibly be revealing? If a nyagrodha seed originally has no coarse mark at all, and it is only through a revealing cause that this coarseness comes to arise, why, then, does a khadira tree not likewise arise from it? For both are equally absent to begin with. Good son, if something is unseen merely because it is subtle, then, once it becomes coarse, it ought to become visible — it is like a single mote of dust, which cannot be seen, and yet, once many motes of dust are gathered together, they become visible. The coarse form within the seed, then, ought likewise to become visible in just this way — why is this? Because, already present within it, are the sprout, the stem, the flower, and the fruit; and within each and every fruit are countless seeds, and within each and every seed are countless trees — it is for this reason that it is named coarse, and, since this coarseness is truly present, it therefore ought to be visible. Good son, if a nyagrodha seed truly possessed the nature of a nyagrodha tree, and a tree grows from it, then, when one sees this very seed being burned by fire, this very capacity to burn ought likewise to have been originally present within it — and, were it truly originally present, the tree ought never to have been able to grow from it in the first place. And, if every dharma truly possessed the nature of both arising and ceasing from the very outset, why, then, does arising always come first and ceasing only afterward, rather than both occurring at one and the same time? It is for this very reason that one should know that it possesses no such fixed nature at all." Lion's Roar Bodhisattva said: "World-Honored One, if a nyagrodha seed originally has no nature of a tree at all, and yet a tree grows from it, why, then, does this same seed not also produce oil? For both are equally absent to begin with." "Good son, a seed of this kind is, in fact, also able to produce oil — though it possesses no such nature originally, it comes to exist through causes and conditions." Lion's Roar said: "Why, then, is it not called sesame oil?" "Good son, because it is not sesame. Good son, it is just as fire arises in dependence on its own conditions, and water arises in dependence on its own conditions — though both alike arise from conditions, neither is able to possess the other's own nature. A nyagrodha seed and sesame oil are exactly the same: though both alike arise from conditions, neither produces the other. A nyagrodha seed's own nature is able to cure cold; sesame oil's own nature is able to cure wind-disorders. Good son, it is like sugarcane, which arises through its own causes and conditions — rock candy and black molasses, though they arise from one and the same source, differ entirely in color and form: rock candy cures heat-disorders, and black molasses cures cold-disorders."

Lion's Roar Bodhisattva said: "World-Honored One, if milk has no nature of curd at all, sesame has no nature of oil at all, a nyagrodha seed has no nature of a tree at all, and clay has no nature of a pot at all, then, likewise, no being at all has buddha-nature — and, if this is so, then the Buddha's earlier teaching that every being, without exception, possesses buddha-nature, and therefore ought to attain unsurpassed, complete awakening, is, I think, not correct. Why is this? Human beings and heavenly beings possess no such fixed nature at all — it is precisely because they possess no fixed nature that a human being can become a heavenly being, and a heavenly being can become a human being, through the cause and condition of karma, and not through any fixed nature at all. A bodhisattva mahāsattva, too, attains unsurpassed, complete awakening through the cause and condition of karma. If every being truly possesses buddha-nature, then for what cause and condition does the icchantika sever every wholesome root and fall into hell? If the bodhi-mind is itself buddha-nature, then the icchantika ought never to be able to sever it at all; and, if it can indeed be severed, how, then, can buddha-nature possibly be called permanent? And, if it is not permanent, it cannot be named buddha-nature at all. If every being truly possesses buddha-nature, why, then, is there any such thing as 'the first arising of the mind' of awakening at all? And how, then, can one speak of a bodhisattva as either retrogressing or non-retrogressing? One who retrogresses, one should know, is a person entirely without buddha-nature. World-Honored One, a bodhisattva mahāsattva who single-mindedly turns toward unsurpassed, complete awakening, who possesses great loving-kindness and great compassion, who sees the faults and calamities of birth, old age, sickness, death, and affliction, who contemplates the great nirvāṇa as free of every such fault, who has faith in the three jewels and in the fruit of karmic action, and who upholds the precepts — dharmas of exactly this kind are what should be named buddha-nature. And, if buddha-nature exists apart from these very dharmas, what need would there be for these dharmas to serve as its cause and condition at all? World-Honored One, milk, without needing any further condition at all, is bound to become curd — yet fresh butter is not like this, and must instead depend upon causes and conditions, namely human effort, a water-vessel, and a churning cord. A being is exactly the same: if he already possesses buddha-nature, he ought to attain unsurpassed, complete awakening entirely apart from any cause or condition at all. And, if it is truly fixed and already present, why, then, does the practitioner, upon seeing the suffering of the three evil destinies, and of birth, old age, sickness, and death, give rise to a mind of retreat at all? Nor, in that case, would he need to cultivate the six perfections at all — he ought simply to attain unsurpassed, complete awakening directly, exactly as milk becomes curd without any further condition. And yet it is certainly not the case that unsurpassed, complete awakening is attained without depending on the six perfections at all — it is for this very reason that one should know that no being at all truly possesses buddha-nature. Furthermore, as the Buddha has earlier taught, the jewel of the Saṅgha is permanent — and, if it is truly permanent, it cannot be impermanent; and, if it is not impermanent, how, then, could it possibly attain unsurpassed, complete awakening at all? And, if the Saṅgha is truly permanent, how, then, can it also be said that every being, without exception, possesses buddha-nature? World-Honored One, if beings, from the very beginning, originally had no bodhi-mind at all, nor any mind of unsurpassed, complete awakening, and only came to possess it afterward, then a being's own buddha-nature ought to be exactly the same — originally absent, and only present afterward. It is for this very reason that every being, without exception, ought to have no buddha-nature at all."

The Buddha said: "Excellent, excellent! Good son, you have already long known the true meaning of buddha-nature, and have raised this question only for the sake of beings. Every being, without exception, truly possesses buddha-nature. You say that, if every being possesses buddha-nature, there ought to be no such thing as 'the first arising of the mind' of awakening — good son, the mind is not buddha-nature. Why is this? Because the mind is impermanent, while buddha-nature is permanent. You ask why there is any such thing as a retrogressing mind — in truth, there is no such thing as a truly retrogressing mind at all. Were the mind truly capable of retrogression, it could never, in the end, attain unsurpassed, complete awakening at all — it is only because its attainment is delayed that it is named 'retrogression.' This bodhi-mind, in truth, is not buddha-nature at all. Why is this? Because the icchantika severs every wholesome root and falls into hell. If the bodhi-mind were itself buddha-nature, the icchantika could then never be named an icchantika at all — and the bodhi-mind, too, could then never be named impermanent. It is for this very reason that one may know for certain that the bodhi-mind, in truth, is not buddha-nature.

"Good son, you say that, if every being possesses buddha-nature, it ought not to require any borrowed condition at all, the way milk becomes curd — this, I think, is not correct. Why is this? Just as five conditions together produce fresh butter, you should know that buddha-nature is exactly the same. It is like the various kinds of ore: there is gold, silver, copper, and iron — all alike composed of the four great elements, all sharing a single name, 'ore,' and a single underlying reality, and yet what each one yields is entirely different from the others. It is only by relying on many conditions together — a being's own merit, the smith's own furnace, and human effort — that gold is finally produced, and it is for this reason that one should know that no fixed nature of gold was originally present within the ore at all. A being's own buddha-nature is not, in itself, yet named 'buddha' — it is only once every kind of merit's own causes and conditions have come together in harmony that buddha-nature is seen, and only then that buddhahood itself is attained. You ask: if every being truly possesses buddha-nature, why, then, is it not seen? This, too, is not correct. Why is this? Because its every cause and condition has not yet come together in harmony. Good son, it is for this very reason that I speak of these two causes, the primary cause and the conditional cause. The primary cause is what is named buddha-nature; the conditional cause is the arising of the bodhi-mind. It is through these two causes and conditions together that unsurpassed, complete awakening is attained — exactly as gold is produced from ore.

"Good son, you say that the Saṅgha is permanent, and yet that no being at all possesses buddha-nature — good son, 'saṅgha' means 'harmonious assembly,' and this harmony is of two kinds: worldly harmony, and harmony in the ultimate sense. Worldly harmony is named the śrāvaka saṅgha; harmony in the ultimate sense is named the bodhisattva saṅgha. The worldly saṅgha is impermanent, while buddha-nature is permanent — and, just as buddha-nature is permanent, the saṅgha in the ultimate sense is exactly the same. Furthermore, there is a saṅgha named for the harmony of the Dharma — this harmony of the Dharma is the twelve divisions of scripture, and, since the twelve divisions of scripture are permanent, it is for this reason that I teach that the Dharma and the Saṅgha are both permanent. Good son, 'saṅgha' means 'harmonious assembly,' and this harmonious assembly is named the twelve links of dependent origination — buddha-nature, too, is present within the twelve links of dependent origination, and the twelve links of dependent origination are themselves permanent. Buddha-nature is exactly the same, and it is for this reason that I teach that the Saṅgha possesses buddha-nature. And, further, the Saṅgha is named for the harmonious assembly of every buddha — it is for this reason, too, that I teach that the Saṅgha possesses buddha-nature."

"Good son, you ask how, if every being possesses buddha-nature, there can still be such a thing as retrogression and non-retrogression at all. Listen closely, listen closely, and I shall distinguish and explain this fully for you. Good son, a bodhisattva mahāsattva retrogresses through any of thirteen dharmas. What are these thirteen? First, a mind without faith; second, a mind that does not act; third, a doubting mind; fourth, being miserly with one's own body and wealth; fifth, giving rise to great dread within nirvāṇa itself, thinking, 'How could this possibly cause beings to be extinguished forever?'; sixth, a mind unable to endure; seventh, a mind that is not gentle and pliant; eighth, sorrow and vexation; ninth, an absence of joy; tenth, heedlessness; eleventh, holding oneself in contempt; twelfth, seeing one's own affliction as something nothing at all is able to destroy; and thirteenth, taking no delight in advancing toward the dharmas of bodhi. Good son, these are named the thirteen dharmas that cause bodhisattvas to retrogress from bodhi. There are, further, six dharmas that destroy the bodhi-mind. What are these six? First, being miserly with the Dharma; second, giving rise to an unwholesome mind toward other beings; third, keeping close company with evil friends; fourth, a lack of diligent exertion; fifth, arrogance and pride; and sixth, being consumed by worldly affairs. Dharmas of exactly these six kinds are able to destroy the bodhi-mind. Good son, there is a person who, hearing that the buddhas, the world-honored ones, are the teachers of gods and humans, supreme and beyond compare among all beings, surpassing even the śrāvaka and the pratyekabuddha, possessed of a Dharma-eye of perfect clarity, seeing every dharma without obstruction, and able to deliver beings across the great sea of suffering, at once gives rise to a great vow upon hearing this, thinking: 'Since such a person truly exists in the world, I, too, shall attain this very thing.' It is through this very cause and condition that he gives rise to the mind of unsurpassed, complete awakening — or else he gives rise to the bodhi-mind through the instruction of another. Yet, upon hearing that a bodhisattva must cultivate austerities across countless kalpas before he finally attains unsurpassed, complete awakening, he reflects, upon hearing this: 'I cannot possibly endure austerities of this kind now — how, then, could I ever attain it?' — and it is for this very reason that he retrogresses. "Good son, there are, further, five dharmas that cause retrogression from the bodhi-mind. What are these five? First, delighting in renouncing the world among non-Buddhist paths; second, failing to cultivate the mind of great loving-kindness; third, delighting in seeking out the faults of Dharma-teachers; fourth, forever delighting in dwelling within birth-and-death; and fifth, taking no pleasure in upholding, reciting, copying out, and expounding the twelve divisions of scripture — these are named the five dharmas that cause retrogression from the bodhi-mind. There are, further, two dharmas that cause retrogression from the bodhi-mind. What are these two? First, craving and delighting in the five desires; and second, being unable to honor and revere the three jewels. It is through causes and conditions of every kind such as these that one retrogresses from the bodhi-mind."

"How, then, is the non-retrogressing mind named? There is a person who, hearing that the Buddha is able to deliver beings from birth, old age, sickness, and death, without relying on any teacher's instruction, naturally cultivates the path and attains unsurpassed, complete awakening, thinking: 'If the path to bodhi can truly be attained, then I, too, shall cultivate it and shall certainly attain it.' It is through this very cause and condition that he gives rise to the bodhi-mind, and, whatever merit he then performs, whether great or small, he dedicates it entirely to unsurpassed, complete awakening, making this very vow: 'May I forever draw close to the buddhas and to the buddhas' own disciples, forever hear the profound Dharma with all five senses complete, and, should I encounter any suffering or hardship, never lose this very resolve. May every buddha and every disciple, further, forever give rise to a joyful mind toward me, endowed with the five wholesome roots. Should any being hack at my body, or sever my hands, feet, head, or limbs, may I give rise, toward this very person, to a mind of great loving-kindness, and rejoice deeply within myself, thinking: this person, too, is increasing the very causes and conditions of my own bodhi — were there no such person at all, by what cause and condition could I possibly accomplish unsurpassed, complete awakening at all? May I never be born without sexual organs, with both sexual organs at once, or in a woman's body; may I never be bound in servitude to another, never encounter an evil master, never belong to an evil king, and never be born in an evil land; may I obtain a fine body and a true and proper lineage, be richly endowed with wealth yet never give rise to arrogance, and may I forever hear the twelve divisions of scripture, upholding, reciting, copying out, and expounding them. Should I expound the Dharma for the sake of beings, may every listener receive it with reverence and faith, free of doubt, and forever give rise to no ill will toward me. May I rather hear little yet understand its meaning deeply, than hear much yet fail to grasp its meaning at all. May I become a master over my own mind, rather than a servant to it; may my actions of body, speech, and mind never mix with any evil; may I be able to grant peace and happiness to every being; may my bodily discipline, mind, and wisdom remain unmoved as a mountain; may I, wishing to uphold the unsurpassed true Dharma, never be stingy with my own body, life, or wealth. May I never perform any meritorious act with impure things; may I sustain myself only through right livelihood, my mind free of deceit and flattery; may I remember every kindness received, and repay even a small kindness with a great one. May I be well versed in every worldly skill and craft, well understanding the languages and customs of every being; may I recite, copy out, and read the twelve divisions of scripture, never giving rise to any laziness or indolence. Should any being take no delight in listening, may I skillfully draw him in, so that he comes to delight in listening. May my speech forever be gentle, my mouth never proclaiming anything evil; may I bring harmony to those who are not in harmony, free those who are anxious and afraid from their anxiety and fear, bring abundance in a time of famine, and, in a time of sickness, become a great king of physicians, freely possessing whatever medicine and wealth the sick may need, so that every sick person is entirely cured. In an age of warfare and calamity, may I possess great power and strength to put an end to its cruelty, leaving nothing of it behind. May I be able to sever every kind of fear a being might hold — the fear of death, of imprisonment, of beating, of flood, of fire, of kings, of thieves, of poverty, of breaking the precepts, of ill repute, of an evil rebirth — fears of every such kind, may I sever them all entirely. May I show the deepest reverence toward my parents and teachers, and give rise to a mind of great loving-kindness even toward those who hate and resent me. May I forever cultivate the six recollections, the gate of the emptiness samādhi, the twelve links of dependent origination, the contemplation of arising and ceasing, the in-breath and the out-breath, heavenly conduct, pure conduct, and noble conduct, the vajra samādhi, and the Śūraṅgama concentration — and, in a place without the three jewels, may I attain a tranquil mind entirely of my own accord. Should my body and mind ever undergo great suffering, may I never lose the unsurpassed bodhi-mind, nor ever settle for contentment with the mind of a śrāvaka or a pratyekabuddha. In a place without the three jewels, may I forever become a renunciant within some non-Buddhist path, so as to refute wrong views without ever actually practicing that path myself, thereby attaining mastery over the Dharma and mastery over my own mind. May I see, with perfect clarity, every fault of every conditioned dharma, so that I come to dread the fruit of the two lesser vehicles exactly as one who cherishes his own life dreads casting away his body — and, for the sake of beings, may I delight in dwelling even among the three evil destinies. Just as other beings delight in the Trāyastriṃśa heaven, may I, for the sake of each and every single being, endure the suffering of hell across countless kalpas, my mind never giving rise to any regret at all. Seeing another attain some gain, may I never give rise to envy, but forever rejoice, exactly as though I myself had attained that very happiness. Should I encounter the three jewels, may I make offerings to them of robes, food and drink, bedding, dwelling, medicine, lamps and incense, flowers, music, banners and canopies, and the seven treasures. Should I receive the Buddha's own precepts, may I uphold them firmly, never once giving rise to any thought of violating them. Should I hear of a bodhisattva's difficult practices and arduous austerities, may my mind rejoice, giving rise to no regret at all; may I remember for myself the affairs of my own past lives, and never again commit any action born of greed, hatred, or delusion. May I never accumulate causes and conditions for the sake of some future fruit, nor give rise to craving or attachment toward any present happiness.' Good son, should anyone be able to give rise to a vow of exactly this kind, this is named a bodhisattva who, in the end, never loses or retrogresses from the bodhi-mind. He is also named a true donor, one who is able to see the Tathāgata, who understands buddha-nature with complete clarity, who is able to tame beings and deliver them from birth-and-death, who is well able to uphold and protect the unsurpassed true Dharma, and who is able to fully complete the six perfections. Good son, it is for this very reason that even the non-retrogressing mind itself is not named buddha-nature."

"Good son, you cannot, merely because there is such a thing as a retrogressing mind, say that beings therefore have no buddha-nature at all. It is like two men who both hear that, in a distant land, there is a mountain of the seven treasures, upon which flows a clear spring whose water is sweet — whoever is able to reach it will forever put an end to poverty, and whoever drinks of its water will have his lifespan increased by ten thousand years; only the road there is impossibly distant, steep, and beset with every kind of danger. At that time, these two men both wished to make the journey together — one equipped himself with every kind of provision, while the other set out with nothing at all. As they journeyed on together, they met, along the road, a man richly laden with treasure and all seven kinds of jewels. The two men came forward and asked him: 'Good sir, does that land truly contain a mountain of the seven treasures?' The man answered: 'It truly exists, without falsehood — I have already obtained its treasure, and drunk of its water; only the road is perilous, beset with many bandits, its sands and salt-flats and thorns leaving it bare of water and grass — those who set out for it number in the thousands and tens of thousands, yet those who actually arrive are very few indeed.' Upon hearing this, one of the two men at once repented, saying: 'Since the road is so impossibly distant, and its hardships so many, and those who set out number beyond count while those who arrive are almost none — how, then, could I possibly reach it? My own household affairs, as things stand, roughly provide for themselves already — should I set out upon this road, I might well lose my very life, and, my body and life no longer whole, what use would a long lifespan even be to me then?' The other man said, further: 'Since another has been able to cross it, I, too, am able to cross it. Should I succeed in arriving, I shall attain exactly what I wished — gathering its treasure, and drinking its sweet water. And, should I fail to arrive, then death itself shall simply be my appointed end.' At that time, of these two men, one repented and turned back, while the other pressed onward and reached that very mountain, where he gathered great wealth, drank the water exactly as he had wished, and, laden with all he had gained, returned to his own home, where he supported his parents and provided generously for his own kin. The man who had repented and turned back, upon seeing this, felt his own heart burn within him, thinking: 'He who went has now returned — why, then, do I remain here?' — and at once equipped himself and set out upon that very road. The mountain of the seven treasures is a likeness for the great nirvāṇa; its sweet, delicious water is a likeness for buddha-nature; these two men are a likeness for two bodhisattvas who have both newly given rise to the mind of the path; the perilous, evil road is a likeness for birth-and-death; the man they encountered is a likeness for the Buddha, the World-Honored One; the bandits present along the way are a likeness for the four Māras; the sands, salt-flats, and thorns are a likeness for every affliction; the absence of water and grass is a likeness for the failure to cultivate the path to bodhi; the man who turned back is a likeness for the retrogressing bodhisattva; and the man who pressed straight onward is a likeness for the non-retrogressing bodhisattva. Good son, a being's own buddha-nature abides forever, unchanging, exactly like that perilous road itself — one cannot say that, merely because a man repented and turned back, the road itself thereby became impermanent; buddha-nature is exactly the same. Good son, along the path to bodhi, there is, in the end, no such thing as true retrogression at all. Good son, it is exactly as with the man who repented: seeing his former companion return with treasure in hand, possessed of power and ease, supporting his parents and providing amply for his kin, enjoying great happiness in abundance — upon seeing this, his own heart burned within him, and he, too, at once equipped himself and set out once more upon that very road, sparing not his own body or life, enduring every hardship, until he, too, finally reached that very mountain of the seven treasures. The retrogressing bodhisattva is exactly the same. Good son, every being, without exception, is certain to attain unsurpassed, complete awakening — it is for this very reason that, within my own scriptures, I teach that every being, without exception — even one who has committed the five heinous crimes, violated the four gravest precepts, or is an icchantika — possesses buddha-nature."

Lion's Roar said: "World-Honored One, how, then, does a bodhisattva either retrogress or not retrogress?" "Good son, should a bodhisattva cultivate the karmic causes and conditions of the Tathāgata's thirty-two marks, he attains the name of one who does not retrogress, the name of a bodhisattva mahāsattva, the name of one unmoved and unshaken, the name of one who has compassion for every being, the name of one who surpasses every śrāvaka and pratyekabuddha, and the name avaivartika. Good son, should a bodhisattva mahāsattva uphold the precepts unwaveringly, never shift from a generous mind, and abide in truthful speech as firmly as Mount Sumeru, through this very karmic cause and condition he attains the mark of level soles, flat as the bottom of a jewel-casket. Should a bodhisattva mahāsattva provide for his parents, his preceptor, his teachers, and even animals, with wealth rightfully obtained, through this very karmic cause and condition he attains the mark of a thousand-spoked wheel upon the soles of his feet. Should a bodhisattva mahāsattva refrain from killing and from stealing, and forever rejoice in the presence of his parents and teachers, through this very karmic cause and condition he attains three marks together: slender, tapering fingers; long heels; and a body that is upright and squared — these three marks share one and the same karmic cause. Should a bodhisattva mahāsattva practice the four means of attracting beings in order to draw them in, through this very karmic cause and condition he attains webbed fingers, like a white swan-king's own. Should a bodhisattva mahāsattva, when his parents or teachers are ill and suffering, wash and wipe them with his own hands, and hold and massage them himself, through this very karmic cause and condition he attains soft hands and feet. Should a bodhisattva mahāsattva uphold the precepts, listen to the Dharma, and give generously without ever tiring of it, through this very karmic cause and condition he attains full, rounded ankles, and body-hair that lies smooth, curling upward. Should a bodhisattva mahāsattva listen to the Dharma single-mindedly and expound the true teaching, through this very karmic cause and condition he attains calves like a royal antelope's. Should a bodhisattva mahāsattva give rise to no intent to harm toward any being, be content with whatever food and drink he receives, forever rejoice, and give generously in tending to the sick and providing medicine, through this very karmic cause and condition his own body becomes full and rounded like a nyagrodha tree; his outstretched arms reach past his own knees; the crown of his head bears a fleshy protuberance; and his crown cannot be seen even from above. Should a bodhisattva mahāsattva, upon seeing one who is afraid, come to his rescue and protection, and, upon seeing one who is naked and bare-footed, give him clothing, through this very karmic cause and condition he attains the mark of a concealed, sheathed organ. Should a bodhisattva mahāsattva draw close to the wise and keep distant from the foolish, delighting in questions and answers, and sweep clean the roads others must travel, through this very karmic cause and condition his skin becomes fine and soft, and his body-hair curls to the right. Should a bodhisattva mahāsattva forever give to others robes, food and drink, bedding, medicine, incense, flowers, and lamps, through this very karmic cause and condition he attains a body of golden color, forever radiant with light. Should a bodhisattva mahāsattva, in the act of giving, be able to give up his own most treasured possessions without any stinginess at all, giving no thought to whether the recipient is or is not a worthy field of merit, through this very karmic cause and condition he attains the mark of seven full, rounded parts of the body. Should a bodhisattva mahāsattva, in the act of giving, give rise to no doubt at all in his own mind, through this very karmic cause and condition he attains a soft, gentle voice. Should a bodhisattva mahāsattva seek wealth only by rightful means, and use it for giving, through this very karmic cause and condition he attains full, unhollowed collarbones, a torso like a lion's, and arms and elbows both rounded and slender. Should a bodhisattva mahāsattva keep far from divisive speech, harsh speech, and a resentful mind, through this very karmic cause and condition he attains forty teeth, white, pure, even, and closely set. Should a bodhisattva mahāsattva cultivate great loving-kindness and great compassion toward every being, through this very karmic cause and condition he attains the mark of the two eye-teeth. Should a bodhisattva mahāsattva forever make this very vow — "Whoever comes to ask of me, I shall give freely, according to his own wish" — through this very karmic cause and condition he attains a lion's own cheeks. Should a bodhisattva mahāsattva give to every being whatever food and drink each one requires, through this very karmic cause and condition he attains the supreme taste among every flavor. Should a bodhisattva mahāsattva himself cultivate the ten wholesome deeds, and, further, use them to transform others, through this very karmic cause and condition he attains a broad, long tongue. Should a bodhisattva mahāsattva never dispute another's faults, nor slander the true Dharma, through this very karmic cause and condition he attains a voice like Brahmā's own. Should a bodhisattva mahāsattva, upon seeing those who hate and resent him, give rise to a joyful mind, through this very karmic cause and condition he attains eyelashes of a deep, dark blue. Should a bodhisattva mahāsattva never conceal another's own virtue, but praise and extol it, through this very karmic cause and condition he attains the mark of the white tuft of hair between the eyebrows. Good son, should a bodhisattva mahāsattva cultivate the karmic causes and conditions of these thirty-two marks in just this way, he attains a bodhi-mind that never retrogresses."

"Good son, every being is inconceivable, and the domain of every buddha, the fruit of karma, and buddha-nature are, likewise, inconceivable. Why is this? Because these four dharmas are all, without exception, permanent, and it is precisely because they are permanent that they are inconceivable. Every being is covered over by affliction, and it is for this reason that he is named permanent; and it is through severing this very affliction that he is named impermanent. Should one say that every being is simply permanent, why, then, does he cultivate the eightfold noble path in order to sever every suffering at all? Once suffering is severed, it is then named impermanent, while the bliss he thereby receives is then named permanent. It is for this very reason that I say: it is only because every being is covered over by affliction that he fails to see buddha-nature, and it is only because he fails to see it that he fails to attain nirvāṇa."