Why Even a Great Bodhisattva Falls Short
Even a great-power bodhisattva has not yet attained the four pāramitās a buddha alone possesses, because the ignorance-dwelling-ground still conditions the mind-made body and its own eventual death. The chapter then closes its account of fruit with one of tathāgatagarbha doctrine's hardest questions: what does it actually mean to say an icchantika lacks the nature of nirvāṇa?
Four Marks: How the Ignorance-Dwelling-Ground Conditions Rebirth
又此四種波羅蜜等住無漏界中。聲聞辟支佛得大力自在，菩薩為證如來功德法身第一彼岸，有四種障。何等為四？一者緣相、二者因相、三者生相、四者壞相。緣相者，謂無明住地，即此無明住地與行作緣，如無明緣行，無明住地緣亦如是故。因相者，謂無明住地緣行，即此無明住地緣行為因，如行緣識，無漏業緣亦如是故。生相者，謂無明住地緣依無漏業因生三種意生身，如四種取緣依有漏業因而生三界，三種意生身生亦如是故。壞相者，謂三種意生身緣不可思議變易死，如依生緣故有老死，三種意生身緣不可思議變易死亦如是故。
又一切煩惱染皆依無明住地根本，以不離無明住地，聲聞、辟支佛、大力菩薩未得遠離無明住地垢，是故未得究竟無為淨波羅蜜。又即依彼無明住地緣，以細相戲論習未得永滅，是故未得究竟無為我波羅蜜。又即緣彼無明住地，有細相戲論集，因無漏業生於意陰未得永滅，是故未得究竟無為樂波羅蜜。以諸煩惱染業染生染未得永滅，是故未證究竟甘露如來法身。以未遠離不可思議變易生死常未究竟，是故未得不變異體。是故未得究竟無為常波羅蜜。
又如煩惱染，無明住地亦如是。如業染，無漏業行亦如是。如生染，三種意生身及不可思議變易死亦如是。如《聖者勝鬘經》言：世尊！譬如取緣有漏業因而生三有。如是，世尊！依無明住地、緣無漏業因，生阿羅漢、辟支佛、大力菩薩三種意生身。世尊！此三乘地三種意生身生及無漏業生，依無明住地，有緣非無緣。如是等《勝鬘經》中廣說應知。
Furthermore, these four pāramitās abide within the uncontaminated realm. For śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas who have attained great power and mastery, and for bodhisattvas still on the way to realizing the far shore of the Tathāgata's own virtuous dharmakāya, there are four kinds of obstruction. What are the four? First, the conditioning mark; second, the causal mark; third, the arising mark; fourth, the destroying mark. The conditioning mark refers to the ignorance-dwelling-ground: this ignorance-dwelling-ground serves as the condition for volitional formations, just as ignorance conditions volitional formations — the ignorance-dwelling-ground conditions in just the same way. The causal mark refers to the ignorance-dwelling-ground conditioning volitional formations: this same ignorance-dwelling-ground's conditioning of volitional formations serves as a cause, just as volitional formations condition consciousness — uncontaminated karma conditions in just the same way. The arising mark refers to the ignorance-dwelling-ground, conditioned by the cause of uncontaminated karma, giving rise to the three kinds of mind-made body — just as the four kinds of clinging, conditioned by the cause of contaminated karma, give rise to the three realms — the arising of the three kinds of mind-made body is just the same. The destroying mark refers to the three kinds of mind-made body being conditioned by the death of inconceivable transformation — just as, conditioned by birth, there is old age and death — the three kinds of mind-made body's being conditioned by the death of inconceivable transformation is just the same.
Furthermore, the defilement of every affliction is rooted in the ignorance-dwelling-ground; because they are not yet apart from it, śrāvakas, pratyekabuddhas, and great-power bodhisattvas have not yet attained freedom from the stain of the ignorance-dwelling-ground, and for this reason have not yet attained the ultimate, unconditioned pāramitā of purity. Furthermore, in dependence on that same ignorance-dwelling-ground as condition, the subtle habitual trace of conceptual proliferation has not yet been permanently extinguished, and for this reason they have not yet attained the ultimate, unconditioned pāramitā of self. Furthermore, in dependence on that same ignorance-dwelling-ground, there is an accumulation of subtle conceptual proliferation, and, caused by uncontaminated karma, the aggregate of mind that constitutes the mind-made body has not yet been permanently extinguished, and for this reason they have not yet attained the ultimate, unconditioned pāramitā of bliss. Because the defilement of affliction, the defilement of karma, and the defilement of rebirth have not yet been permanently extinguished, they have not yet realized the ultimate, ambrosial dharmakāya of the Tathāgata. Because they have not yet become free of the death of inconceivable transformation, ever incomplete, they have not yet attained the unchanging essence, and for this reason have not yet attained the ultimate, unconditioned pāramitā of permanence.
Just as with the defilement of affliction, the ignorance-dwelling-ground is likewise so; just as with the defilement of karma, uncontaminated karmic activity is likewise so; just as with the defilement of rebirth, the three kinds of mind-made body and the death of inconceivable transformation are likewise so. As the Noble Śrīmālā Sūtra says: "World-Honored One! It is like how clinging, conditioned by the cause of contaminated karma, gives rise to the three realms of existence. Just so, World-Honored One, in dependence on the ignorance-dwelling-ground, conditioned by the cause of uncontaminated karma, arise the three kinds of mind-made body — of the arhat, the pratyekabuddha, and the great-power bodhisattva. World-Honored One! These three kinds of mind-made body of the three vehicle-grounds, and the arising of uncontaminated karma itself, depend on the ignorance-dwelling-ground: they have a genuine condition, not no condition at all." The Śrīmālā Sūtra explains this at such length, and should be understood accordingly.
This passage restates, using the technical apparatus of the twelve links of dependent origination, exactly the mechanism this site's own Śrīmālādevī Sūtra translation works out in its own Mind-Made Bodies, and a Fraction of Nirvāṇa section — and quotes that very sūtra's own words for it directly, matching this site's translation almost verbatim. The four "marks" mapped onto ignorance, volitional formations, and rebirth make explicit something the sūtra itself states more compactly: the ignorance-dwelling-ground functions as a genuine cause and condition for the three kinds of mind-made body exactly the way ordinary ignorance functions as cause and condition for ordinary rebirth — the parallel structure, not a looser family resemblance, is the whole point of laying the two twelve-link chains side by side.
Eight Pairs of Dharmas Behind the Four Pāramitās
復次以聲聞、辟支佛、大力菩薩三種意生身中無淨我樂常波羅蜜彼岸功德身，是故聖者《勝鬘經》言：唯如來法身是常波羅蜜、樂波羅蜜、我波羅蜜、淨波羅蜜。如是等故。此明何義？以如來法身自性清淨，離一切煩惱障、智障習氣，故名為淨，是故說言：唯如來法身是淨波羅蜜。以得寂靜第一自在我故，離無我戲論究竟寂靜，故名為我，是故說言：唯如來法身是我波羅蜜。以得遠離意生陰身因，故名為樂，是故說言：唯如來法身是樂波羅蜜。以世間涅槃平等證故，故名為常，是故說言：唯如來法身是常波羅蜜。
又復略說有二種法，依此二法，如來法身有淨波羅蜜應知。何等為二？一者本來自性清淨，以因相故；二者離垢清淨，以勝相故。有二種法，依此二法，如來法身有我波羅蜜應知。何等為二？一者遠離諸外道邊，以離虛妄我戲論故；二者遠離諸聲聞邊，以離無我戲論故。有二種法，依此二法，如來法身有樂波羅蜜應知。何等為二？一者遠離一切苦、二者遠離一切煩惱習氣。此以何義？云何遠離一切苦？以滅一切種苦故、以滅一切意生身故。云何遠離煩惱習氣？以證一切法故。有二種法，依此二法，如來法身有常波羅蜜應知。何等為二？一者不滅一切諸有為行，以離斷見邊故；二者不取無為涅槃，以離常見邊故。
以是義故，《聖者勝鬘經》中說言：世尊！見諸行無常，是斷見，非正見。見涅槃常，是常見，非正見。妄想見故，作如是見故。以是義故，依如是向說法界法門第一義諦，說即世間法名為涅槃。以此二法不分別故、以證不住世間涅槃故，是故偈言：
無分別之人， 不分別世間，
不分別涅槃， 涅槃有平等。
Furthermore, because the three kinds of mind-made body belonging to the śrāvaka, pratyekabuddha, and great-power bodhisattva lack the virtuous, far-shore body of the pāramitās of purity, self, bliss, and permanence, the Noble Śrīmālā Sūtra therefore says: "Only the Tathāgata's dharmakāya is the pāramitā of permanence, the pāramitā of bliss, the pāramitā of self, and the pāramitā of purity," and so on. What does this clarify? Because the Tathāgata's dharmakāya is pure by its own nature, free of the habitual traces of every obstruction of affliction and obstruction of knowledge, it is called pure. Because it has attained the foremost, quiescent, sovereign self, free of the conceptual proliferation of no-self, ultimately quiescent, it is called self. Because it has attained freedom from the cause of the aggregate that is the mind-made body, it is called bliss. Because it realizes the equality of the world and nirvāṇa, it is called permanence.
Furthermore, briefly stated, there are two dharmas, in dependence on which the Tathāgata's dharmakāya should be known to possess the pāramitā of purity. What are the two? First, purity by its own nature from the very beginning, as the causal aspect; second, purity freed of stain, as the superior aspect. There are two dharmas, in dependence on which the Tathāgata's dharmakāya should be known to possess the pāramitā of self. What are the two? First, being far removed from the extreme of the outsiders, by being free of the conceptual proliferation of a false self; second, being far removed from the extreme of the śrāvakas, by being free of the conceptual proliferation of no-self. There are two dharmas, in dependence on which the Tathāgata's dharmakāya should be known to possess the pāramitā of bliss. What are the two? First, being far removed from all suffering; second, being far removed from every habitual trace of affliction. How is one far removed from all suffering? By extinguishing every kind of suffering, and by extinguishing every mind-made body. How is one far removed from the habitual traces of affliction? By realizing all dharmas. There are two dharmas, in dependence on which the Tathāgata's dharmakāya should be known to possess the pāramitā of permanence. What are the two? First, not extinguishing any conditioned activity, being far removed from the extreme of the view of annihilation; second, not clinging to unconditioned nirvāṇa, being far removed from the extreme of the view of permanence.
For this reason, the Noble Śrīmālā Sūtra says: "World-Honored One! To see all conditioned formations as impermanent is the view of annihilation, not right view. To see nirvāṇa as permanent is the view of permanence, not right view. It is because of a falsely imagined view that such views are held." For this reason, in dependence on this teaching of the dharma-gate of the dharma-realm, the truth of the first principle, worldly dharmas themselves are said to be named nirvāṇa. Because these two dharmas are not discriminated apart, and because one realizes that one abides in neither the world nor nirvāṇa, the verse says:
One without discrimination does not discriminate the world,
does not discriminate nirvāṇa —
nirvāṇa possesses equality.
Each of the four pāramitās here is analyzed into two component dharmas that split it, in every case, into the same underlying pattern: one aspect that avoids the outsiders' extreme, and one that avoids a rival Buddhist extreme. The pāramitā of self is far removed both from "the outsiders' extreme" (a false, substantial self) and "the śrāvakas' extreme" (an equally false, absolute no-self); the pāramitā of permanence is far removed both from annihilationism and from a naively literal eternalism about nirvāṇa. This double-sided structure is the treatise's own working-out of the middle way already familiar from this site's Madhyamaka corpus, applied specifically to buddha-nature rather than argued in the abstract — and the closing quotation of the Śrīmālā Sūtra's own warning against exactly these two views, annihilationism and eternalism, ties the point directly back to that sūtra's own language.
If There Were No Buddha-Nature
後半偈者示現何義？偈言：
若無佛性者， 不得厭諸苦，
不求涅槃樂， 亦不欲不願。
以是義故，《聖者勝鬘經》言：世尊！若無如來藏者，不得厭苦、樂求涅槃，亦無欲涅槃，亦不願求。如是等此明何義？略說佛性清淨正因，於不定聚眾生能作二種業。何等為二？一者依見世間種種苦惱，厭諸苦故，生心欲離諸世間中一切苦惱。偈言：若無佛性者，不得厭諸苦故。二者依見涅槃樂悕寂樂故，生求心欲心願心。偈言：若無佛性者，不求涅槃樂，亦不欲不願故。又欲者，求涅槃故。求者，悕涅槃故。悕者，於悕求法中不怯弱故。欲得者，於所求法中方便追求故。及諮問故。願者，所期法中。所期法者，心心相行。是故偈言：
見苦果樂果， 此依性而有，
若無佛性者， 不起如是心。
此偈明何義？凡所有見世間苦果者、凡所有見涅槃樂果者，此二種法，善根眾生有，一切依因真如佛性、非離佛性無因緣故起如是心。偈言：見苦果樂果，此依性而有故。若無因緣生如是心者，一闡提等無涅槃性，應發菩提心。偈言：若無佛性者，不起如是心故。
以性未離一切客塵煩惱諸垢，於三乘中未曾修習一乘信心，又未親近善知識等，亦未修習親近善知識因緣，是故華嚴性起中言：次有乃至邪見聚等眾生身中，皆有如來日輪光照，作彼眾生利益、作未來因善根，增長諸白法故。向說一闡提常不入涅槃，無涅槃性者此義云何？為欲示現謗大乘因故。此明何義？為欲迴轉誹謗大乘心、不求大乘心故，依無量時故如是說。以彼實有清淨性故，不得說言彼常畢竟無清淨性。
What meaning does the latter half of this verse reveal? A verse says:
If there were no buddha-nature, one could not weary of suffering,
nor seek the bliss of nirvāṇa, nor wish for it, nor vow to attain it.
For this reason, the Noble Śrīmālā Sūtra says: "World-Honored One! If there were no tathāgatagarbha, one could not weary of suffering, delight in and seek nirvāṇa, wish for nirvāṇa, or vow to seek it." What does this clarify? Briefly stated, the pure, correct cause that is buddha-nature is able to perform two functions for beings of the undetermined group. What are the two? First, in dependence on seeing the various sufferings and afflictions of the world, wearying of these sufferings, one gives rise to a mind wishing to leave behind every suffering and affliction within the world. Second, in dependence on seeing the bliss of nirvāṇa, longing for its quiescent bliss, one gives rise to a mind that seeks, wishes, and vows. Furthermore, "wishing" means seeking nirvāṇa; "seeking" means longing for nirvāṇa; "longing" means not being timid with respect to the dharma one longs to seek; "wishing to attain" means diligently pursuing, by skillful means, the dharma one seeks, and inquiring after it; "vowing" means within the dharma one anticipates. Hence the verse says:
Seeing the fruit of suffering and the fruit of bliss — these exist in dependence on this nature;
if there were no buddha-nature, such a mind could not arise at all.
What meaning does this verse make clear? Whoever sees the fruit of the world's suffering, and whoever sees the fruit of nirvāṇa's bliss — both of these are possessed by beings with roots of goodness, and both entirely depend on and are caused by the buddha-nature of suchness; such a mind could never arise apart from any cause or condition, without buddha-nature. If such a mind could arise without any cause or condition, then even icchantikas, who lack the nature of nirvāṇa, ought to be able to arouse the bodhi-mind without needing buddha-nature at all.
Because their nature has not yet been freed from every stain of adventitious affliction, and because, among the three vehicles, they have never yet cultivated faith in the one vehicle, nor drawn near to a good spiritual friend, nor cultivated the causes and conditions for drawing near to a good spiritual friend — hence the Nature's Arising chapter of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra says: "Furthermore, even within the body of a being of the wrong-view group, there is the illumination of the Tathāgata's own solar disk, benefiting that being, serving as a cause for future roots of goodness, and increasing every pure dharma." As for the earlier statement that the icchantika permanently never enters nirvāṇa, lacking the nature of nirvāṇa — what does this mean? It is meant to reveal the cause of slandering the Mahāyāna. What does this clarify? It is said in this way, in dependence on an immeasurable span of time, in order to turn back a mind that slanders the Mahāyāna and does not seek it. Since that being genuinely possesses the pure nature, it cannot be said that they are permanently, ultimately without the pure nature at all.
The claim that "if there were no buddha-nature, one could not weary of suffering" is quoted from this site's own Śrīmālādevī Sūtra translation nearly verbatim, and this treatise's own gloss adds the argument the sūtra states only as an assertion: without buddha-nature as their cause, the wish to leave suffering behind and the wish to attain nirvāṇa's bliss could never arise at all, "apart from any cause or condition" — and if such wishes really could arise causelessly, then icchantikas, who by definition lack roots of goodness, should be just as capable of arousing bodhicitta as anyone else, which the tradition denies. The argument therefore treats the very fact that a being can feel dissatisfaction with suffering and long for something better as itself indirect evidence of buddha-nature's presence, not a separate psychological fact standing apart from it.
The closing paragraph resolves a genuine tension this site's readers of the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra will recognize: that sūtra insists, against earlier tradition, that even the icchantika retains buddha-nature and can eventually attain buddhahood, while this same treatise has just spent several pages treating the icchantika as one of four kinds of being permanently obstructed from seeing the Tathāgata's nature. The treatise resolves this itself, directly: the claim that an icchantika "permanently never enters nirvāṇa" was never a metaphysical fact about their nature, but a rhetorical device — stated "in dependence on an immeasurable span of time," meant only to frighten someone away from slandering the Mahāyāna in the here and now, since "that being genuinely possesses the pure nature" regardless of what the warning's own wording suggests. The Avataṃsaka Sūtra citation makes the same point pictorially: even a being of the "wrong-view group" already has the Tathāgata's own sunlight shining within them, quietly building future good roots, whether or not that being currently believes any of this at all.
Part 10 Complete
This closes the treatise's account of fruit, and with it the icchantika question this whole chapter has been building toward. Part 11 turns to the chapter's remaining points — function, correspondence, and manifestation — beginning with three similes comparing the tathāgatagarbha to the ocean.
Continue to Part 11 — Three Similes for a Buddha's Correspondence →