Back to Seventh Assembly Contents

Back to Preface to Assembly Seven

Taishō no. 220
Fascicle 574

Translated by Imperial Decree by Tripiṭakācārya Xuanzang

Translated into English by Shaku Shingan (5.8.2025)

Thus have I heard:

At one time, the Bhagavān was in Śrāvasti, at Jeta’s Grove, Anāthapiṇḍada’s Park, together with a great bhikṣu saṅgha of hundreds of thousands, all of them arhats, except for Ānanda, who alone was on the stage of a learner. They were headed by Śāriputra and so forth. There was also a great assembly of ten thousand bodhisattva mahāsattvas, all adorned with the armour of non-retrogression. Maitreya Bodhisattva, Mañjuśrī Bodhisattva, Asaṅgapratibhāna Bodhisattva, and Anikṣiptadhura Bodhisattva led them.

At that time, the youthful Mañjuśrī Bodhisattva, with his radiant signs manifest, emerged from his dwelling and came to the presence of the Tathāgata. Standing at the perimeter, he remained in attendance. The Venerable Śāriputra, Mahākātyāyana, Mahākāśyapa, Mahāmaudgalyāyana, Pūrṇa Maitrāyaṇīputra, and Mahākauṣṭhila—all the great śrāvaka saṅgha—each likewise came from their respective dwellings, and came to the presence of the Tathāgata. Standing at the perimeter, they remained in attendance.

At that time, the Bhagavān, knowing that the great assembly had gathered, emerged from his dwelling, arranged his usual seat, and sat in the lotus position. He said to Śāriputra: “O Śāriputra, why are you standing outside so early in the morning?”

Then, Śāriputra addressed the Buddha, saying: “O Bhagavān! The youthful Mañjuśrī Bodhisattva arrived here before us; we came afterwards.”

At that time, the Bhagavān, knowing this already, deliberately asked Mañjuśrī: “O son of good family! Did you come here first to behold, venerate, and draw near to the Buddha?”

Mañjuśrī addressed the Buddha, saying: “Thus it is! O Bhagavān! Thus it is! O Sugata! Why is it so? I have never grown weary of beholding, venerating, and drawing near to the Tathāgata. I came here before the others purely for the benefit and happiness of sentient beings. O Bhagavān! I have come to draw near to and venerate the Tathāgata purely for the benefit and happiness of all sentient beings; not for the sake of attaining buddhahood, not out of a desire to gaze upon the Tathāgata’s body, not to disturb the true dharma-realm, not to analyse the nature of dharmas, nor for any other such reason. I behold the Tathāgata as having the marks of thusness—unmoving and unproduced, free from all discrimination, without duality or difference, neither located nor dislocated, neither existent nor non-existent, neither permanent nor discontinuous, neither within the three times nor apart from the three times, neither arising nor ceasing, neither coming nor going, neither defiled nor undefiled, neither dual nor non-dual—where the path of mind and speech is cut off. To behold the Tathāgata in this way, as possessing the marks of thusness, is called truly seeing the Buddha, and is also called venerating and drawing near to the Tathāgata. This, truly, brings benefit and happiness to sentient beings.”

The Buddha said to Mañjuśrī: “When you behold the Tathāgata in this way, what do you see?”

Mañjuśrī said: “O Bhagavān! When I behold in this way, I see nothing at all. I grasp at no marks of dharmas.”

The Buddha said: “Sādhu! Sādhu! O youth! You thus can behold the Tathāgata without grasping or rejecting any mental dharma, neither collecting nor dispersing them mentally.”

Then, Śāriputra said to Mañjuśrī: “That you can behold, venerate, and draw near to the Tathāgata in this way is truly rare indeed. Though you always have compassion for all sentient beings, you gain nothing at all from sentient beings. Though you can guide all sentient beings to nirvāṇa, you do not grasp at them. Though you don the great armour for the benefit and happiness of sentient beings, you employ no accumulating or dispersing expedients therein.”

Then, Mañjuśrī said to Śāriputra: “Thus it is! Thus it is! Just as you have said. It is for the benefit and happiness of sentient beings that I don the great armour to lead them to nirvāṇa. But truly, in the realisation of the sentient beings taught or the nirvāṇa realm that is transformed, nothing is gained or grasped. But, O Śāriputra, I do not truly don the great armour out of a desire to benefit sentient beings. Why is that so? The realm of sentient beings neither increases nor decreases. Suppose that in this buddha-land, there were as many buddhas as grains of sand in the Ganges. Each one remains for as many great kalpas as there are grains of sand, continually teaching the Dharma day and night. Each Dharma teaching can liberate as many sentient beings in this buddha-land [as there are grains of sand], bringing them all to final nirvāṇa without remainder. Suppose such events occur in this buddha-land—and likewise in all the world systems in the ten directions, as numerous as the sands of the Ganges. Even though so many buddha bhagavāns spend so much time teaching the Dharma and liberating so many sentient beings, all bringing them to nirvāṇa without remainder, still, the realm of sentient beings does not increase or decrease. Why is it so? Because the nature of sentient beings is originally isolated, boundless, and without increase or decrease.”

Śāriputra said: “Mañjuśrī! If the nature of sentient beings is originally isolated, boundless, and without increase or decrease, why then do bodhisattvas seek great bodhi, wishing to teach the sublime Dharma for sentient beings constantly?”

Mañjuśrī said: “O Śāriputra! I say that sentient beings are utterly inapprehensible. So how could there be a bodhisattva who seeks great bodhi, wishing to teach the sublime Dharma for sentient beings constantly? Why is it so? O Śāriputra! Because all dharmas are ultimately inapprehensible.”

The Buddha said to Mañjuśrī: “If sentient beings are utterly inapprehensible, why speak, positing a ‘realm of sentient beings’?”

Mañjuśrī said: “O Bhagavān! A realm of sentient beings is merely a provisional designation.”

[Buddha:] “Mañjuśrī! Suppose someone were to ask you: ‘How many are there in the realm of sentient beings?’ How would you respond?”

[Mañjuśrī:] “O Bhagavān! I would answer: ‘As many as the buddha-dharmas—that realm is likewise.’”

[Buddha:] “Mañjuśrī! Suppose they ask you again: ‘What is the extent of the realm of sentient beings?’ How would you answer?”

[Mañjuśrī:] “O Bhagavān! I would answer: ‘The extent of the realm of sentient beings is equal to the Buddha’s cognitive range.’”

[Buddha:] “Mañjuśrī! Suppose they ask: ‘To what does the realm of sentient beings belong?’ How would you answer?”

[Mañjuśrī:] “O Bhagavān! I would answer: ‘That realm belongs to the inconceivable, like the Buddha.’”

[Buddha:] “Mañjuśrī! Suppose they ask: ‘Where does the realm of sentient beings abide?’ How would you answer?”

[Mañjuśrī:] “O Bhagavān! I would answer: ‘If there is a place where dharmas abide which are separate from the bounds of defilement—the realm of sentient beings abides there.”

[Buddha:] “Mañjuśrī! When you cultivate the Prajñā pāramitā, in what do you abide?”

[Mañjuśrī:] “O Bhagavān! When I cultivate the profound Prajñā Pāramitā, I abide nowhere at all.”

[Buddha:] “Mañjuśrī! If you abide nowhere, how can you cultivate the profound Prajñā Pāramitā?”

[Mañjuśrī:] “O Bhagavān! It is precisely because I abide nowhere that I can cultivate the Prajñā Pāramitā.”

[Buddha:] “Mañjuśrī! When you cultivate the Prajñā Pāramitā, regarding the wholesome and the unwholesome, what increase or decrease is there?”

[Mañjuśrī:] “O Bhagavān! When I cultivate the profound Prajñā Pāramitā, regarding the wholesome and the unwholesome, there is neither increase nor decrease. O Bhagavān! When I cultivate the profound Prajñā Pāramitā, there is likewise neither increase nor decrease with regard to all dharmas. O Bhagavān! The Prajñā Pāramitā appears in the world not for the sake of increasing or decreasing any dharma. O Bhagavān! To cultivate and train in the profound Prajñā Pāramitā is not for the purpose of rejecting the dharmas of ordinary beings, nor for the purpose of appropriating all the Buddha-dharmas. Why is that so? The profound Prajñā Pāramitā does not arise from abandoning dharmas or acquiring dharmas. O Bhagavān! To cultivate and train in the profound Prajñā Pāramitā is not out of aversion for the faults of saṃsāra, nor out of longing for the merits of nirvāṇa. Why is that so? One who cultivates this Dharma does not perceive saṃsāra at all—how then could they feel aversion toward it? One does not perceive nirvāṇa—how then could they delight in it? O Bhagavān! One who cultivates the profound Prajñā Pāramitā does not perceive any dharma as inferior or superior, as loss or gain, as to be abandoned or to be taken up. O Bhagavān! One who cultivates the profound Prajñā Pāramitā does not apprehend any dharma as something that can be increased or decreased. Why is that so? Because in the true dharma-realm, there is neither increase nor decrease. O Bhagavān! One who can cultivate in this manner is said to cultivate and train in the profound Prajñā Pāramitā truly.

“Moreover, O Bhagavān, if one cultivates the Prajñā Pāramitā, without increase or decrease in any dharma, they are said to cultivate the profound Prajñā Pāramitā truly. If one cultivates the Prajñā Pāramitā, perceiving no arising or ceasing in any dharma, they are said to cultivate the profound Prajñā Pāramitā truly. If one cultivates the Prajñā Pāramitā, without perceiving increase or decrease in any dharma, they are said to cultivate the profound Prajñā Pāramitā truly. If one cultivates the Prajñā Pāramitā, without perceiving arising or ceasing in any dharma, they are said to cultivate and train in the profound Prajñā Pāramitā truly.

“Moreover, O Bhagavān, if one cultivates the Prajñā Pāramitā, and does not engage in conceptual thought toward any dharma, whether of many or few, and one harbours no longing, an agent of longing, an object of longing, and longing itself—all are not clung to—they are said to cultivate the profound Prajñā Pāramitā truly. If one cultivates the Prajñā Pāramitā, and does not perceive any dharma as beautiful or ugly, high or low, they are said to cultivate and train in the profound Prajñā Pāramitā truly.

“Moreover, O Bhagavān, a son of good family who cultivates the Prajñā Pāramitā does not attain superior or inferior dharmas; that is, they do not perceive superiority or inferiority at all—this is truly the Prajñā Pāramitā. Why is that so? Thusness, the dharma-realm, dharma-nature, and the reality limit are without superiority or inferiority. One who cultivates in this way is said to cultivate and train in the profound Prajñā Pāramitā truly.”

The Buddha said to Mañjuśrī: “Are the sublime buddha-dharmas also not superior?”

Mañjuśrī said: “O Bhagavān! Because the sublime buddha-dharmas are ungraspable, they also cannot be said to be superior or inferior. Has not the Tathāgata realised the emptiness of all dharmas?”

The Bhagavān replied: “Thus it is! O youth!”

Mañjuśrī then said to the Buddha: “In the emptiness of all dharmas, how could there be superiority or inferiority?”

The Bhagavān praised him, saying: “Sādhu! Sādhu! Thus it is! Thus it is! It is just as you have said. O Mañjuśrī! Are not the buddha-dharmas unsurpassed?”

[Mañjuśrī:] “Thus it is! O Bhagavān! Though all buddha-dharmas are indeed unsurpassed, within them no dharma is apprehensible. Therefore, it cannot be said that the buddha-dharmas are unsurpassed.

“Moreover, O Bhagavān, a son of good family who cultivates the Prajñā Pāramitā does not wish to maintain all the abide in or bear all the buddha-dharmas, nor to subdue the dharmas of ordinary beings. The profound Prajñā Pāramitā neither increases the buddha-dharmas nor subdues the dharmas of ordinary beings, because it aspires to no discriminations among all dharmas. One who cultivates in this way is said to cultivate and train in the profound Prajñā Pāramitā truly.

“Moreover, O Bhagavān, a son of good family who cultivates the Prajñā Pāramitā does not perceive any dharma as something to be conceptualised or discriminated.”

[Buddha:] “Mañjuśrī! Do you not contemplate upon the Buddha-Dharma?”

[Mañjuśrī:] “No! O Bhagavān, if I were to perceive that there was truly a Buddha-Dharma to be contemplated, then I would contemplate. But I do not perceive such a thing.

“O Bhagavān! The Prajñā Pāramitā does not arise for the sake of discriminating among dharmas. It does not distinguish: ‘This is the dharma of an ordinary being,’ ‘this is the dharma of a śrāvaka,’ ‘this is the dharma of a pratyekabuddha,’ ‘this is the dharma of a bodhisattva,’ ‘this is the dharma of a Tathāgata.’ A son of good family who diligently cultivates the profound Prajñā Pāramitā does not attain anything among all dharmas, nor does he proclaim anything. He does not declare that there is a nature of dharma for ordinary beings, nor even for śrāvakas up to tathāgatas. Why is that so? Because the nature of these dharmas is ultimately empty and inapprehensible. One who cultivates in this way is said to cultivate and train in the profound Prajñā Pāramitā truly.

“Moreover, O Bhagavān, a son of good family who diligently cultivates the Prajñā Pāramitā does not think: ‘This is the desire realm, this is the form realm, this is the formless realm, this is the realm of cessation.’ Why is that so? Because in the profound Prajñā Pāramitā, one does not perceive any dharma as something that can be extinguished. One who cultivates in this way is said to cultivate and train in the profound Prajñā Pāramitā truly.

“Moreover, O Bhagavān, If one cultivates the Prajñā Pāramitā, one does not harbour notions of favour or resentment toward any dharma. Why is it so? Because in the profound Prajñā Pāramitā one does not abide bearing all the buddha-dharmas, nor abandoning the dharmas of ordinary beings. Why is that so? A son of good family who diligently cultivates the Prajñā Pāramitā does not seek to realise the buddha-dharmas, nor to destroy the dharmas of ordinary beings, for he realises that the nature of all dharmas is equal. One who cultivates in this way is said to cultivate and train in the profound Prajñā Pāramitā truly.”

At that time, the Bhagavān praised him, saying: “Mañjuśrī! Sādhu! Sādhu! You are now able to explain the profound Dharma, to set forth the true Dharma seal for the bodhisattva mahāsattva saṅgha, and to establish the great Dharma seal for the arrogant among śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas, so that they may truly understand that what they previously believed to be final was not the ultimate. O Mañjuśrī! If a son of good family or daughter of good family hears this profound Dharma, and their mind neither sinks nor is frightened, know that this person has not merely planted roots of merit under one buddha, or even a thousand buddhas, but has definitely planted roots of merit under immeasurably, incalculably many buddhas, and is thereby able to hear this profound Prajñā Pāramitā without their mind sinking or being frightened.”

At that time, the youthful Mañjuśrī joined his palms in reverence and again said to the Buddha: “I wish to speak further on the profound Prajñā Pāramitā—may I be permitted?”

The Buddha said to Mañjuśrī: “If you wish to speak, speak as you see fit.”

Mañjuśrī then addressed the Buddha, saying: “O Bhagavān! If one cultivates the profound Prajñā Pāramitā, they do not apprehend any dharma as a basis in which to abide, nor do they apprehend any dharma as not a basis. One should know that such a profound Prajñā Pāramitā is not dependent on any dharma for its abiding. Why is it so? Because all dharmas are without any basis. O Bhagavān! One who can cultivate in this manner is said to truly cultivate the profound Prajñā Pāramitā, because they do not grasp at the characteristic of any dharma.

“Moreover, O Bhagavān, one should contemplate in this way the profound Prajñā Pāramitā: it does not involve the direct perception of the nature and marks of dharmas. That is, there is not even direct perception of the buddha-dharmas—how much less of the bodhisattva dharmas! There is not even direct perception of the bodhisattva dharmas—how much less of the pratyekabuddha dharmas! There is not even direct perception of the pratyekabuddha dharmas—how much less of the śrāvaka dharmas! There is not even direct perception of the śrāvaka dharmas—how much less of the dharmas of ordinary beings! Why is it so? Because all dharmas are separate from any nature or mark.

“Moreover, O Bhagavān, based on cultivating this profound Prajñā Pāramitā, there is no discrimination among dharmas at all. That is, there is no discrimination between what is conceivable and inconceivable, or between any distinctions in dharma-nature. One should know that the bodhisattva mahāsattvas who cultivate the Prajñā Pāramitā make no discriminations at all among dharmas.

“Moreover, O Bhagavān, based on cultivating this profound Prajñā Pāramitā, one does not perceive among all dharmas that ‘this is a buddha-dharma’ or ‘this is not a buddha-dharma,’ ‘this is conceivable’ or ‘this is inconceivable’—because all dharmas lack distinguishing characteristics. If there are sentient beings who can cultivate this profound Prajñā Pāramitā in such a way, then they perceive all dharmas as buddha-dharmas because they accord with bodhi. They perceive all dharmas as inconceivable because they are ultimately empty. These sentient beings must have previously drawn near to, made offerings to, and reverently served hundreds of thousands of buddhas, and planted roots of merit, to cultivate the Prajñā Pāramitā in this way.

“Moreover, O Bhagavān, if a son of good family or daughter of good family hear such a profound Prajñā Pāramitā being taught, and their mind neither sinks nor is frightened, one should know that they have, in past lives, drawn near to, made offerings to, and reverently served hundreds of thousands of buddhas, and planted roots of merit, and are thus able to do so.

“Moreover, O Bhagavān, one should contemplate in this way the profound Prajñā Pāramitā: if one can diligently cultivate it, then among all dharmas one does not perceive impurity, and one does not perceive purity. Even though nothing is perceived, one is still able to cultivate the profound Prajñā Pāramitā diligently, and at all times, one’s mind is never weary.

“Moreover, O Bhagavān, if one cultivates this profound Prajñā Pāramitā, one does not make any distinction among the dharmas of ordinary beings, śrāvakas, pratyekabuddhas, bodhisattvas, or buddhas, because one realises that these dharmas are ultimately empty. One who can do so is said to cultivate and train in the profound Prajñā Pāramitā truly.”

The Buddha said to Mañjuśrī: “How many Buddhas have you drawn near to and made offerings to?”

Mañjuśrī said: “O Bhagavān! I have drawn near to and made offerings to as many buddhas as there are thoughts of an illusory person, or mental factors, because all dharmas are like illusions.”

[Buddha:] “Mañjuśrī! Do you not seek the buddha-dharmas?”

[Mañjuśrī:] “O Bhagavān! I do not perceive any dharma that is not a buddha-dharma—what then is there to seek?”

[Buddha:] “Mañjuśrī! Have you already attained the buddha-dharmas?”

[Mañjuśrī:] “O Bhagavān! I do not perceive any dharma that could be called a buddha-dharma—what then is there to attain?”

[Buddha:] “Mañjuśrī! Have you not attained the state of non-attachment?”

[Mañjuśrī:] “O Bhagavān! I am already in the state of non-attachment—how then could non-attachment attain non-attachment?”

[Buddha:] “Mañjuśrī! Will you not sit upon the seat of bodhi?”

[Mañjuśrī:] “O Bhagavān! Even the buddhas have no concept of ‘sitting’ upon the seat of bodhi—how then could I sit? Why is it so? Because all dharmas are measured by the reality limit. Within the reality limit, both ‘sitting’ and ‘one who sits’ are inapprehensible.”

[Buddha:] “Mañjuśrī! In speaking about the reality limit, is this not merely a designation?”

[Mañjuśrī:] “O Bhagavān! One should know that what is called the ‘reality limit’ is merely speech arising from an illusory body.”

[Buddha:] “Mañjuśrī! How can an illusory body speak of the reality limit?”

[Mañjuśrī:] “O Bhagavān! The reality limit is without coming or going, neither true nor false. Both the body and the marks of the body are inapprehensible—and so too is the illusory body. Therefore, the illusory body is itself the reality limit.”

Then, Śāriputra addressed the Buddha, saying: “If bodhisattvas hear this profound Prajñā Pāramitā being taught, and their mind neither sinks nor is frightened, such bodhisattvas are definitely destined for bodhi and will not turn back.”

Maitreya Bodhisattva also said to the Buddha: “If bodhisattvas hear this profound Prajñā Pāramitā being taught, and their mind neither sinks nor is frightened, then such bodhisattvas have already approached unexcelled, perfect bodhi. Why is it so? Because such bodhisattvas have directly realised the nature of dharmas as free from all discrimination, which is precisely great bodhi.”

Mañjuśrī further addressed the Buddha, saying: “If bodhisattvas hear this profound Prajñā Pāramitā being taught, and their mind neither sinks nor is frightened, then such bodhisattvas, like the Bhagavān himself, are worthy to receive offerings and reverence from the world. Why is it so? Because they have awakened to the true nature of all dharmas.”

Then, a woman named Nirālambā joined her palms in reverence and said: “O Bhagavān! If sentient beings hear this profound Prajñā Pāramitā being taught, and their minds neither sink nor are frightened, then such sentient beings do not conceptualise the dharmas of ordinary beings, nor the dharmas of śrāvakas, nor the dharmas of pratyekabuddhas, or the dharmas of bodhisattvas, nor the dharmas of tathāgatas. Why is that so? Because they realise that all dharmas are entirely non-existent, and both the subject and object of conceptual reflection are inapprehensible.”

At that time, the Buddha addressed Śāriputra and the others: “Thus it is! Thus it is! It is just as she has said. If a son of good family or daughter of good family hears such a profound Prajñā Pāramitā being taught, and their mind neither sinks nor is frightened, then this son of good family or daughter of good family has already abided on the stage of non-retrogression and is definitely destined for bodhi without ever turning back. O Śāriputra and others! If sentient beings hear this profound Prajñā Pāramitā being taught, and their mind neither sinks nor is frightened, and they rejoice in it, faithfully delight in it, hear and listen, and take up and bear it, and teach it to others without weariness in their minds, then such sentient beings are capable of becoming true, vast, and supreme benefactors to all beings. They can bestow the supreme treasure, and they have fully accomplished the Dāna Pāramitā. Such sentient beings have perfected pure morality, possessing true morality, supreme morality, and the virtues of morality in full, having completed the Śīla Pāramitā. Such sentient beings have perfected patience, possessing true patience, supreme patience, and the virtues of patience in full, having completed the Kṣānti Pāramitā. Such sentient beings have perfected diligence, possessing true diligence, supreme diligence, and the virtues of diligence in full, having completed the Vīrya Pāramitā. Such sentient beings have perfected concentration, possessing true concentration, supreme concentration, and the virtues of concentration in full, having completed the Dhyāna Pāramitā. Such sentient beings have perfected Prajñā, possessing true Prajñā, supreme Prajñā, and the virtues of Prajñā in full, having completed the Prajñā Pāramitā. Such sentient beings have accomplished true and supreme loving-kindness, compassion, joy, and equanimity, and are also capable of explaining and elucidating the profound Prajñā Pāramitā to others.”

The Buddha said to Mañjuśrī: “With what meaning do you contemplate, in seeking unexcelled perfect bodhi?”

Mañjuśrī said: “O Bhagavān! I do not even abide in a thought bent upon unexcelled perfect bodhi—how then could I seek to realise it? I have no intention of seeking bodhi. Why is that so? Bodhi is myself, and I am bodhi—how could one seek or approach it?”

The Buddha said: “Sādhu! Sādhu! O youth! You can skilfully articulate the meaning of the profound. You have planted roots of merit under many previous buddhas, and have given rise to the great aspiration a long time ago. You can cultivate all forms of pure noble conduct based on non-attainment.”

Mañjuśrī then addressed the Buddha, saying: “If there were something to be attained among all dharmas, then one might be able to cultivate pure noble conduct based on non-attainment. But I do not perceive any dharma that can be attained, nor any non-attainment—how then could one speak of cultivating pure noble conduct based on non-attainment?”

The Buddha said to Mañjuśrī: “Do you now perceive the virtues of my śrāvakas?”

[Mañjuśrī:] “O Bhagavān! I do perceive them!”

The Buddha said: “O youth! How do you see them?”

[Mañjuśrī:] “O Bhagavān! At present, I perceive the śrāvakas as neither ordinary beings nor noble ones, neither learners nor those beyond learning, neither visible nor invisible, neither seers nor non-seers, neither many nor few, neither small nor great, neither tamed nor untamed. I perceive them in this way, but without holding any perception at all.”

Then, Śāriputra further asked him: “If you perceive the śrāvaka vehicle in this way, how then do you perceive the vehicle of unexcelled complete awakening?”

[Mañjuśrī:] “O venerable sir! I do not perceive bodhisattvas, nor do I perceive the dharmas of bodhisattvas. I do not perceive bodhi, nor the dharmas that lead toward bodhi. I do not perceive any practice of approaching bodhi, nor any dharma of realising bodhi, nor anyone who realises bodhi. My way of perceiving the vehicle of unexcelled complete awakening is thus: that there is nothing whatsoever to be perceived within it.”

Then, Śāriputra again asked him: “How, then, do you perceive the Tathāgata?”

[Mañjuśrī:] “O venerable sir! Stop! Stop! Do not enter into disputation regarding the great nāga-king, the Tathāgata.”

[Śāriputra:] “Mañjuśrī! This term ‘Buddha’—is this not merely a designation?”

[Mañjuśrī:] “O venerable sir, I now ask you: this term ‘self’—what kind of a designation is it?”

Śāriputra said: “The term ‘self’ is merely a conventionally designated name, an empty designation.”

[Mañjuśrī:] “O venerable sir! You should know that the designation ‘Buddha’ is equivalent to the designation ‘self’. Both ‘I’ and ‘Buddha’ are ultimately empty—merely conventionally designated names. The name ‘bodhi’ is likewise conventionally designated. One cannot seek true bodhi by grasping at this name. The mark of bodhi is empty and cannot be expressed. Why is it so? Because both names and bodhi are empty. Since names are empty, speech is also empty. The empty cannot be used to express a dharma which is empty. Since bodhi is empty, the Buddha is also empty. Therefore, the term ‘Buddha’ is an empty designation.

“Moreover, O venerable sir! This term ‘Buddha’—neither comes nor goes, neither arises nor ceases. There is nothing to be realised, nothing to be accomplished, no name, no mark, nothing that can be distinguished, no speech, no teaching, and nothing that can be expressed. Only subtle wisdom directly realises this inwardly. It is said that the tathāgatas realise that all dharmas are ultimately empty and tranquil and thereby realise great bodhi. Following the conventions of the world, they are called ‘buddhas’, but not because they truly exist. Since they are neither existent nor non-existent, they are inapprehensible.

“Moreover, O venerable sir, the subtle wisdom realised by the Tathāgata is what is conventionally called ‘bodhi’; it is by accomplishing bodhi that one is conventionally called the Buddha. Since bodhi is empty, the Buddha is also empty. Thus, the name ‘Buddha’ is an empty designation.”

Then, Śāriputra addressed the Buddha, saying: “Mañjuśrī’s exposition of the profound Dharma is not something that beginners can understand.”

At that time, the youthful Mañjuśrī said to the venerable Śāriputra: “What I have spoken is not merely beyond the comprehension of beginners—even those who are accomplished and have attained arhatship cannot understand it. Indeed, no one at all can understand what I have said. Why is that so? Because the marks of bodhi are not objects of consciousness. They cannot be seen or heard, attained or conceived. They are neither arising nor ceasing, neither describable nor receivable through hearing. Such is the nature of bodhi: empty and tranquil. Even the great bodhisattvas have not yet come to know it—how much less could it be known and understood by followers of the two vehicles? Since the nature of bodhi cannot even be apprehended, how much less could there be someone who truly realises bodhi?”

Śāriputra said: "Mañjuśrī! Has the Buddha not realised the dharma-realm?”

[Mañjuśrī:] “No! O venerable sir! Why is that so? The Buddha is the dharma-realm; the dharma-realm is the Buddha. The dharma-realm does not need to realise the dharma-realm.

“Moreover, O Śāriputra, the emptiness of all dharmas is what is described as the dharma-realm, and this very dharma-realm is what is described as bodhi. The dharma-realm and bodhi are both free from any nature or mark. Thus, it is said that all dharmas are empty. As all dharmas are empty, bodhi and the dharma-realm are both the range of the Buddha, without duality or distinction. Because they are without duality or distinction, they cannot be known. Because they cannot be known, they cannot be expressed. Because they cannot be expressed, they cannot be posited as conditioned or unconditioned, existent or non-existent, or anything else.

“Moreover, O Śāriputra, the nature of all dharmas is likewise without duality or distinction. Because they are without duality or distinction, they cannot be known. Because they cannot be known, they cannot be expressed. Because they cannot be spoken, they cannot be posited. Why is that so? Because the true nature of all dharmas is entirely non-existent and cannot be posited as ‘here’ or ‘there,’ or as ‘this thing’ or ‘that thing.’

“Moreover, O Śāriputra, if one commits an immediate offence,1 one should understand that they also create the inconceivable and also create the reality limit. Why is it so? O Śāriputra! The inconceivable and the five immediate offences both abide in the reality limit, and their nature is without distinction. Since no one creates the reality limit, the immediate offences and the inconceivable are likewise not created. By this principle, one who commits an immediate offence does not thereby fall into hell, and one who realises the inconceivable does not thereby attain rebirth in heaven. One who commits an immediate offence does not necessarily sink into saṃsāra for a long night, and one who realises the inconceivable does not thereby ultimately attain nirvāṇa. Why is it so? O Śāriputra! The inconceivable and the five immediate offences all abide in the reality limit; their nature is without distinction, neither arising nor ceasing, neither coming nor going, neither cause nor result, neither good nor evil, neither leading to evil realms nor to human or heavenly rebirth, neither the realisation of nirvāṇa nor the ending of saṃsāra. Why is it so? Because in the true dharma-realm, there is neither good nor evil, neither high nor low, and no before or after.

“Moreover, O Śāriputra! A bhikṣu who violates a grave precept does not necessarily fall into hell, and a pure precept-holder does not necessarily attain rebirth in heaven. A bhikṣu who violates a grave precept does not necessarily sink into saṃsāra, and a pure precept-holder does not necessarily attain nirvāṇa. A bhikṣu who violates a grave precept is not necessarily to be reviled, and a pure precept-holder is not necessarily to be praised. A bhikṣu who violates a grave precept is not necessarily to be scorned, and a pure precept-holder is not necessarily to be honoured. A bhikṣu who violates a grave precept is not necessarily to be argumentative, and a pure precept-holder is not necessarily to be united. A bhikṣu who violates a grave precept is not necessarily to be far removed, and a pure precept-holder is not necessarily to be approached. A bhikṣu who violates a grave precept is not necessarily to be harmed, and a pure precept-holder is not necessarily to be benefited. A bhikṣu who violates a grave precept is not necessarily unworthy of offerings, and a pure precept-holder is not necessarily always worthy of offerings. A bhikṣu who violates a grave precept does not necessarily increase defilements, and a pure precept-holder does not necessarily diminish defilements. A bhikṣu who violates a grave precept is not necessarily impure, and a pure precept-holder is not necessarily completely pure. A bhikṣu who violates a grave precept is not necessarily lacking in pure faith, and a pure precept-holder does not necessarily possess pure faith. A bhikṣu who violates a grave precept is not necessarily unfit to receive offerings given in pure faith, and a pure precept-holder is not necessarily always fit to receive offerings given in pure faith. Why is it so? O Śāriputra! Within the true dharma-realm, transgression and observance have a nature of equality, without distinction.

“Moreover, O Śāriputra, among ordinary beings, those who are called ‘united’ are so named; among those whose effluents are exhausted, bhikṣus are said to be ‘not united.’”

[Śāriputra:] “Mañjuśrī! On what basis do you make such a statement?”

[Mañjuśrī:] “O venerable sir! Because ordinary beings are joined with the causes of birth, they are said to be ‘united.’ The arhats have no such condition and are thus said to be ‘not united.’ It is on this basis that I make such a statement.

“Moreover, O Śāriputra, among ordinary beings, those who are called ‘overcomers of fear’ are so named; among those whose effluents are exhausted, bhikṣus are said to be ‘not overcomers of fear.’ “

[Śāriputra:] “Mañjuśrī! On what basis do you make such a statement?”

[Mañjuśrī:] “O venerable sir! Because ordinary beings do not give rise to fear toward fearsome dharmas, they are called ‘overcomers of fear.’ The arhats know that fearsome dharmas are entirely non-existent and thus have no fear to overcome. It is on this basis that I make such a statement.

“Moreover, O Śāriputra, among ordinary beings, it is said they have attained the patience at non-cessation; among bodhisattvas, it is said they have attained the patience at non-arising.”

[Śāriputra:] “Mañjuśrī! On what basis do you make such a statement?”

[Mañjuśrī:] “O venerable sir! Because ordinary beings do not delight in cessation, they are said to have attained the patience at non-cessation. Bodhisattvas do not perceive the arising of dharmas, and are thus said to have attained the patience at non-arising. It is on this basis that I make such a statement.

“Moreover, O Śāriputra, among ordinary beings, it is said they are ‘tamed’; among those whose effluents are exhausted, bhikṣus are said to be ‘not tamed.’”

[Śāriputra:] “Mañjuśrī! On what basis do you make such a statement?”

[Mañjuśrī:] “O venerable sir! Because ordinary beings are not yet tamed and thus require taming, they come to be called ‘tamed.’ Arhats, having exhausted all effluents and bonds, no longer require taming and are therefore called ‘not tamed.’ It is on this basis that I make such a statement.

“Moreover, O Śāriputra, among ordinary beings, it is said they are ‘those with elevated minds who act beyond the path;’ among those whose effluents are exhausted, bhikṣus are said to have ‘lowly minds and not to act beyond the path.’”

[Śāriputra:] “Mañjuśrī! On what basis do you make such a statement?”

[Mañjuśrī:] “O venerable sir! Because ordinary beings, their minds being haughty, act contrary to the dharma-realm, they are said to be ‘those with elevated minds who act beyond the path.’ Arhats, their minds being humble, act in accordance with the dharma-realm, and are thus said to have ‘lowly minds and not to act beyond the path.’ It is on this basis that I make such a statement.”

Then, Śāriputra praised Mañjuśrī, saying: “Sādhu! Sādhu! You have skilfully explained the meaning of these esoteric expressions for my benefit.”

Mañjuśrī replied: “Thus it is! Thus it is! O venerable sir! Not only can I explain the meaning of esoteric expressions—I myself am a true arhat, one whose effluents are exhausted. Why is it so? Because I no longer give rise to any attachment or desire for the attainments of the śrāvaka or pratyekabuddha vehicles. That is why I am called a true arhat whose effluents are exhausted.”

The Buddha said to Mañjuśrī: “Is there a cause and condition under which it can be said that a bodhisattva, seated upon the seat of bodhi, does not realise unexcelled perfect bodhi?”

Mañjuśrī said: “O Bhagavān! There is indeed such a cause and condition. It can be said that a bodhisattva, seated upon the seat of bodhi, does not realise unexcelled perfect bodhi. Because within bodhi, there is not even the slightest dharma that can be named unexcelled perfect bodhi. Yet the true nature of bodhi is without distinction. It is not something that can be attained by sitting, nor is it something that is lost by not sitting. By this cause and condition, it can be said that the bodhisattva, seated upon the seat of bodhi, does not realise bodhi, because the bodhi that is without marks cannot be realised.”

Mañjuśrī then said to the Buddha: “Unexcelled bodhi is precisely the five uninterrupted karmas, and those five uninterrupted karmas are precisely this bodhi. Why is that so? Bodhi and the uninterrupted karmas are both merely conventional designations. There is no real essence of bodhi. It cannot be realised, cannot be cultivated, and cannot be seen. The five uninterrupted karmas are also just the same. Moreover, the nature of all dharmas is ultimately imperceptible. Within them, there is no cognition, no knower of cognition, no visibility, no seer, no knowing, no knower, no discrimination, and no discriminator. That which is free from marks and equal is called bodhi, and the nature of the five uninterrupted karmas is also the same. Therefore, bodhi cannot be realised. To speak of realising, cultivating, or seeing great bodhi is an expression of arrogance.”

The Buddha said to Mañjuśrī: “Do you now claim that I am the Tathāgata?”

[Mañjuśrī:] “No! O Bhagavān! No! O Sugata! I do not claim that the Buddha is truly the Tathāgata. Why is that so? The Tathāgata is one who, through subtle wisdom, realises and unites with thusness. Yet both subtle wisdom and thusness are free from all marks. That which is free from marks is not thusness, and likewise, subtle wisdom is not subtle wisdom. Since there is neither subtle wisdom nor thusness, the Tathāgata is also not ultimately real. Why is it so? Thusness and subtle wisdom are merely conventionally designated. So too is the Tathāgata—neither dual nor non-dual. Therefore, subtle wisdom, thusness, and the Tathāgata are all merely names, and not a single one of them is real. That is why I do not claim that the Buddha is truly the Tathāgata.”

The Buddha said to Mañjuśrī: “Do you not harbour doubt regarding the Tathāgata?”

[Mañjuśrī:] “No! O Bhagavān! No! O Sugata! Why is it so? I regard the Tathāgata as truly inapprehensible, neither arising nor ceasing, and therefore, I harbour no doubt.”

The Buddha said to Mañjuśrī: “Does the Tathāgata not appear in the world?”

[Mañjuśrī:] “No! O Bhagavān! No! O Sugata! If the true dharma-realm appeared in the world, then it could be said that the Tathāgata appears in the world. But the true dharma-realm does not appear in the world. Therefore, the Tathāgata does not appear either.”

[Buddha:] “Mañjuśrī! Do you say that as many as the grains of sand in the Ganges of tathāgatas have entered nirvāṇa?”

[Mañjuśrī:] “O Bhagavān! Is it not the case that all the buddhas and tathāgatas share the same inconceivable single characteristic of their range?”

[Buddha:] “Mañjuśrī! Thus it is! Thus it is! It is just as you have said. All buddhas and tathāgatas share the same inconceivable single characteristic of their range.”

Mañjuśrī then said to the Buddha: “Does the present Buddha Bhagavān now dwell in the world?”

The Buddha said: “Thus it is!”

Mañjuśrī then addressed the Buddha, saying: “If the Buddha Bhagavān now dwells in the world, then all the tathāgatas, as numerous as the grains of sand in the Ganges, must also dwell in the world. Why is it so? Because all tathāgatas share the same inconceivable, single characteristic as their range. The inconceivable characteristic neither arises nor ceases—so how could the buddhas enter nirvāṇa? Therefore, O Bhagavān, if future buddhas are to appear in the world, then all tathāgatas must appear in the world; if past buddhas have already entered nirvāṇa, then all tathāgatas must have entered complete cessation; and if the present buddha has now realised bodhi, then all tathāgatas must now realise it as well. Why is it so? Because, within the inconceivable, all past, future, and present buddhas are without distinction. Yet the world is deluded and attached, grasping at all kinds of conceptual elaboration, saying that the Buddha Bhagavān has birth and cessation, and that he realises bodhi.”

The Buddha said to Mañjuśrī: “The Dharma you have spoken can be understood only by the Tathāgata, the non-retrogressing bodhisattvas, and the great arhats. Others cannot comprehend it. Why is it so? Only the tathāgatas and the like, having heard this profound Dharma, truly understand it, neither praising nor disparaging it, for they know that both mind and non-mind are inapprehensible. Why is that so? Because the nature of all dharmas is entirely equal. Both mind and non-mind are inapprehensible, and thus within dharmas there is neither praise nor disparagement.”

Mañjuśrī then said to the Buddha: “For this profound Dharma, who could praise or disparage it?”

The Buddha said: “O youth! Foolish ordinary beings, in their deluded minds, are truly not of the nature of mind, yet their mind is of the same inconceivable nature as that of the Buddha.”

Mañjuśrī then said to the Buddha: “The mind of foolish ordinary beings, which is not of the nature of mind, can this truly be inconceivable and the same as the Buddha’s mind?”

The Buddha said to Mañjuśrī: “Thus it is! Thus it is! It is just as you have said. Why is it so? The Buddha, the minds of sentient beings, and all dharmas are entirely equal and inconceivable.”

Mañjuśrī then said to the Buddha: “If the Buddha, the minds of sentient beings, and all dharmas are equal and inconceivable, then do not the efforts of the noble sages who diligently seek nirvāṇa become futile? How should one understand this? Since the inconceivable nature and the nature of nirvāṇa are without distinction, what need is there to seek it further? If someone says, ‘This is the dharma of ordinary beings, and this is the dharma of sages, and they are distinct,’ then know that such a person has never truly approached a true and pure spiritual friend. Speaking in this way, they cause sentient beings to cling to dualistic distinctions between dharmas and to sink into saṃsāra, unable to attain nirvāṇa.”

The Buddha said to Mañjuśrī: “Do you wish that the Tathāgata be supreme among sentient beings?”

[Mañjuśrī:] “O Bhagavān! If sentient beings were truly existent, then I would wish the Tathāgata to be supreme among them. However, sentient beings are ultimately inapprehensible.”

The Buddha said to Mañjuśrī: “Do you wish the Buddha to accomplish inconceivable dharmas?”

[Mañjuśrī:] “O Bhagavān! If there were truly some inconceivable dharma that could be accomplished, I would wish the Tathāgata to accomplish it. However, no such thing exists.”

The Buddha said to Mañjuśrī: “Do you wish the Tathāgata to teach the Dharma and train the assembly of his disciples?”

[Mañjuśrī:] “O Bhagavān! If there were some teaching of the Dharma that could train the dharma-realm of thusness, I would wish the Tathāgata to teach the Dharma and train the assembly of his disciples. However, the Buddha Bhagavān, appearing in the world, has no favour or benefit toward sentient beings. Why is that so? Because all sentient beings dwell in the unadulterated dharma-realm of thusness. Within this realm, there are no ordinary beings, no noble ones, no teachers, and no hearers that can be apprehended.”

The Buddha said to Mañjuśrī: “Do you wish the Tathāgata to be the unsurpassed true field of merit in the world?”

Mañjuśrī said: “O Bhagavān! If fields of merit were truly existent, I would wish the Buddha to be the unsurpassed among them. However, fields of merit are ultimately inapprehensible. Therefore, the buddhas are neither fields of merit nor non-fields of merit. This is because merit, non-merit, and the nature of all dharmas are equal. Still, that which is called by the world ‘the inexhaustible field’ may be named the ‘unsurpassed field.’ The buddha bhagavāns have realised inexhaustible merit, and so it may be said they are the unsurpassed field of merit.

Furthermore, that field which in the world is said to be unchanging may be named the ‘unsurpassed field.’ The buddha bhagavāns have realised unchanging merit, and so it may be said they are the unsurpassed field of merit. Furthermore, that field which in the world is said to be of inconceivable use may be named the ‘unsurpassed field.’ The buddha bhagavāns have realised inconceivable merit, and so it may be said they are the unsurpassed field of merit. Although the buddhas’ field of merit is truly unsurpassed, those who plant merit therein experience neither decrease nor increase.”

The Buddha said to Mañjuśrī: “On what basis do you make such a statement?”

Mañjuśrī said: “O Bhagavān! The characteristics of the Buddha’s field of merit are inconceivable. If one plants merit therein, one is immediately able to realise the equality of dharma-nature and comprehend that all dharmas are without increase or decrease. Therefore, the Buddha’s field of merit is supremely unsurpassed.”

At that time, by the power of the Buddha Bhagavān—through his supernormal power and the power of the Dharma—the great earth shook in six ways. Then, among those in the assembly, there were sixteen koṭis of great bhikṣus who had completely exhausted all effluents and were liberated in mind. There were seven hundred bhikṣuṇīs, three thousand upāsakas, forty thousand upāsikās, and six hundred koṭis of nayutas of devas of the desire realm, all of whom were free from dust and defilement and gave rise to the pure Dharma eye.

Then, Ānanda rose from his seat, bowed at the Buddha’s feet, draped his robe over one shoulder, placed his right knee on the ground, joined his palms in respect, and said: “O Bhagavān! For what reason and on what occasion did this great earth shake in six ways?”

At that time, the Buddha addressed Ānanda, saying: “This auspicious sign has appeared because Mañjuśrī has spoken on the characteristics of the field of merit, and I have approved it. In the past, the buddhas also spoke here on the field of merit, and the great earth shook. Thus, in the present, this event has appeared as well.”