The bodhisattva Dṛḍhādhyāśaya sets out for alms one morning in the city of Rājagṛha. Catching sight there of a merchant’s beautiful daughter, he is overcome with attraction. Unable to quell his feelings, he rushes out of town with an empty begging bowl—but finds himself being pursued by a replica of the merchant’s daughter emanated by the Buddha. Distressed, the bodhisattva inquires about the nature of these events to the Blessed One, who then gives a discourse on nonduality by focusing on the erroneous manner in which certain bhikṣus, bhikṣuṇīs, laymen, and laywomen take the path as a means of escape. At its conclusion, eight great śrāvakas each praise the discourse as engendering their own foremost quality in others.
This publication was completed under the patronage and supervision of 84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha.
The text was translated, edited, and introduced by the 84000 translation team. Sophie McGrath produced the translation and wrote the introduction. It was checked against the Tibetan by Laura Goetz. Nathaniel Rich and John Canti edited the translation and the introduction, and Dawn Collins copyedited the text. Sameer Dhingra was in charge of the digital publication process.
The Episode of Dṛḍhādhyāśaya is a relatively short sūtra that begins by introducing the bodhisattva-monk Dṛḍhādhyāśaya, who instantly falls in love with a merchant’s daughter while on an alms round. He tries to remedy his desire with thoughts of the unpleasantness of her body but fails, and so removes himself from her presence without receiving alms. The Buddha, who is nearby, is aware of Dṛḍhādhyāśaya’s situation and, in order to tame him, chases him with an apparition of the beautiful girl. The bodhisattva flees in fright, but the apparition catches up with him and tells him that fleeing will not help—only relinquishing his desire will. Distressed, the bodhisattva Dṛḍhādhyāśaya goes to the Buddha to request a teaching through which he can understand the nature of these events.
Now that the bodhisattva Dṛḍhādhyāśaya is primed for such a teaching, the Buddha delivers a concise yet uncompromising and profound discourse on nonduality using the analogies of a magical illusion, a dream, a mirage, a reflection, the son of a barren woman, and a visual hallucination. Each analogy is used to indicate the erroneous way certain bhikṣus, bhikṣuṇīs, laymen, and laywomen present in the audience perceive things that do not really exist, and how they analyze whether they should take up or discard them, affirm or negate them. Of such practitioners the Buddha repeatedly states, “I do not say of such foolish people that they are cultivating the path; they should be said to be on the wrong course.” He declares that only a nondualistic approach is the correct way to practice: from the standpoint of the dharmadhātu one should not take up, discard, negate, or affirm any phenomenon.
While there is no extant Sanskrit manuscript of The Episode of Dṛḍhādhyāśaya, the work was clearly known to Indian scholars, and indeed bears the distinction of being cited as scriptural authority in treatises both on Madhyamaka and on buddha nature. A longer portion of this text1 is cited in the twenty-third chapter of Candrakīrti’s The Clear Words (Prasannapadā, Toh 3860), of which there are multiple Sanskrit manuscripts extant. This citation is made in the commentary to verse 142 of the “Examination of Errors” chapter of Nāgārjuna’s Fundamental Treatise on the Middle Way (Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, Toh 3824).3
The Episode of Dṛḍhādhyāśaya has also been used as a scriptural source for the first three of the seven vajra topics (vajrapāda)4 in Maitreya’s Ratnagotravibhāga (Toh 4024)—namely, Buddha, Dharma, and Saṅgha. The prose commentary (vyākhyā, Toh 4025) to the root verses, which the Tibetan tradition attributes to Asaṅga,5 cites the following passage from a section that describes the text’s entrustment to Ānanda near the end of The Episode of Dṛḍhādhyāśaya:
“Ānanda, the Tathāgata is indemonstrable. He cannot be seen with the eyes. Ānanda, the Dharma is inexpressible. It cannot be heard with the ears. Ānanda, the Saṅgha is unconditioned. It cannot be honored with body, speech, or mind.”6
The Commentary on the Meaning of the Words,7 one of the earliest Tibetan commentaries on the Ratnagotravibhāga and its commentary, which has no author attribution, states that this sūtra passage is used as a source for the first three vajra topics because it indicates that they are difficult to realize nonconceptually—which is the fundamental feature of all seven vajra topics.8
The sūtra itself is unrelated in theme to any of the sources of buddha-nature doctrine itself, but because it is cited by Asaṅga in his commentary, it has been included in lists of sūtras of “definitive meaning” (Tib. nges don) by various Tibetan commentators such as Rinchen Yeshé (thirteenth/fourteenth century)9 and Gorampa Sönam Sengé (1429–89).10
This sūtra appears in all Kangyurs with the same Tibetan title, lhag pa’i bsam pa brtan pa’i le’u, but with two different Sanskrit titles: Sthīrādhyāśayaparivarta and Dṛḍhādhyāśayaparivarta.11 Some Kangyurs do not give a Sanskrit title.12 The sūtra is cited in Sanskrit manuscripts of the Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā with the title Dṛḍhādhyāśayaparivarta13 and in Candrakīrti’s The Clear Words with the title Dṛḍhādhyāśayaparipṛcchā in chapter 1 but Dṛḍhāśayaparipṛcchā in chapter 23.14 Given these mentions in the Sanskrit literature, it is likely that the title Sthīrādhyāśayaparivarta represents a back-translation from the Tibetan.
According to the colophon, The Episode of Dṛḍhādhyāśaya was translated into Tibetan by the Indian preceptors Surendrabodhi and Prajñāvarman and the Tibetan Yeshé Dé. The title is listed in the early ninth-century Denkarma (ldan dkar ma) and Phangthangma (’phang thang ma) imperial inventories, but in both, as well as in the lists of canonical texts compiled by Chomden Rikpai Raltri and Butön in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries respectively, the corresponding text is said to have four bam po (fascicles), i.e., to be much longer than the present text, so we cannot be entirely sure that this text is the one referenced.15 Despite these discrepancies, it seems reasonably likely that it was translated by the early ninth century. It is not present in the Chinese canon.
This English translation was prepared based on the Tibetan translation in the Degé Kangyur, in consultation with the Comparative Edition (Tib. dpe bsdur ma) and the Stok Palace Kangyur version. Arihiro Kosaka’s (2021) translation and Sanskrit critical edition of the twenty-third chapter of Candrakīrti’s The Clear Words, which (as mentioned above) contains a lengthy citation from this sūtra, proved helpful for this translation.
[F.164.a]Homage to all buddhas and bodhisattvas!
Thus did I hear at one time. The Blessed One was residing on Vulture Peak, in Rājagṛha, together with a great monastic saṅgha of 1,250 bhikṣus and 500 bodhisattvas.
At that time, early in the morning, the bodhisattva Dṛḍhādhyāśaya put on his lower and upper robes and, carrying his begging bowl, went for alms in Rājagṛha. While the bodhisattva Dṛḍhādhyāśaya was on his alms round from house to house in the city of Rājagṛha he saw a girl inside the house of a merchant. She was beautiful, good looking, with the most splendid and excellent complexion. Seeing this girl, he was overcome with the pangs of desire. No matter how much he told himself to focus his attention on her unpleasantness, all he could do was think of her beauty. So, feeling overwhelmed by his ardor, the bodhisattva Dṛḍhādhyāśaya did not accept alms from that household and left the city of Rājagṛha with an empty begging bowl.
When he tried not to let his desirous thoughts come to mind, he could not dispel those desirous thoughts using the force of any of his deliberations.[F.164.b] Since the Blessed One’s pure divine eye transcends that of humans, he saw that the bodhisattva Dṛḍhādhyāśaya had desirous thoughts and could not dispel those desirous thoughts using the force of any of his deliberations.
In order to train the bodhisattva Dṛḍhādhyāśaya, the Blessed One emanated a girl just like the daughter of the merchant on the very road upon which the bodhisattva Dṛḍhādhyāśaya was walking.
Upon seeing the emanated girl, the bodhisattva Dṛḍhādhyāśaya asked, “Noble daughter, where are you going?”
“I am going wherever you are going,” the emanated girl replied.
The bodhisattva Dṛḍhādhyāśaya then fled in fear and fright, fleeing up to an impassable hilltop. But the emanated girl followed him up that impassable hilltop.
Exhausted, the bodhisattva Dṛḍhādhyāśaya sat down. The emanated girl sat down in front of the bodhisattva Dṛḍhādhyāśaya and, sitting there, spoke this verse:
With these words, the emanated girl flung herself from the impassable hilltop. As she plunged down, she fell apart: her head went one way, her arms another way, and her legs yet another. All her limbs and other parts of her body disintegrated. Just as snow that is touched heats up, melts, and is absorbed into the ground, so, too, did the emanated girl vanish.
Since the bodhisattva Dṛḍhādhyāśaya[F.165.a] could no longer see the emanated girl, his desirous thoughts subsided and he began to feel greatly sorrowful.
Greatly sorrowful as he was, he heeded the verse spoken by the emanated girl, and thought, “I will ask the Blessed One about all that has happened. When I do so, the Blessed One, knowing my mind, will certainly give a teaching by which I will clearly realize the Dharma.”
Leaving the impassable hilltop, the bodhisattva Dṛḍhādhyāśaya went to where the Blessed One was. He bowed his head at the feet of the Blessed One and sat down to one side.
At that time, the Blessed One was teaching the Dharma while being honored by a retinue of many hundreds of thousands that surrounded him. When the bodhisattva Dṛḍhādhyāśaya knew that the Blessed One had finished speaking, he draped his upper robe over one shoulder and knelt on the ground. With palms joined he bowed toward the Blessed One and asked him about all that had happened.
16The Blessed One said, “Noble son, that is what it is like for someone who seeks to use the path to escape.17 The Tathāgata, noble son, has not said that desire is eliminated by eliminating what one desires. Likewise, the Tathāgata has not said that hatred and ignorance are eliminated by eliminating what one hates or what one is ignorant about. Why is that? Noble son, the Tathāgata does not teach the Dharma because there is anything to give up or to acquire. He does not teach it because there is anything to know, abandon, cultivate, experience, or realize,[F.165.b] or a saṃsāra to leave, a nirvāṇa to go to, or anything to negate, affirm, or divide.
“Noble son, dualistic division is not the true nature of the tathāgatas. People who conduct themselves dualistically are not on the right course. Noble son, what is dualistic? The thought ‘I will abandon desire’ is dualistic. The thoughts ‘I will abandon hatred’ and ‘I will abandon ignorance’ are dualistic. People who conduct themselves this way are not on the right course and should be said to be on the wrong course.
“Noble son, this may be illustrated as follows: suppose a magician conjures up a dancer in a show, and a certain man becomes desirous upon seeing the magically conjured up woman. His mind wrapped up in his desire, and fearful and shy on account of the crowd, he gets up from his seat and leaves, and once he has left, he focuses on the unpleasantness of that woman and on her impermanence, suffering, emptiness, and lack of self.18 Noble son, what do you think? Would that man be on the right course, or would he be on the wrong course?”
The bodhisattva Dṛḍhādhyāśaya replied, “Blessed One, that man’s endeavors to focus on the unpleasantness of a nonexistent woman and on her impermanence, suffering, emptiness, and lack of self would have been wrong.”
The Blessed One said, “Noble son, here there are some bhikṣus, bhikṣuṇīs, laymen, and laywomen who focus on the unpleasantness of phenomena that are unborn and unarisen, and focus on their impermanence, suffering, emptiness, and lack of self: they should be seen as just like that man. I do not say of such foolish people that they are cultivating the path;[F.166.a] they should be said to be on the wrong course.
“Noble son, this may be illustrated as follows: suppose a man were to fall asleep and dream that the ruler’s wife is in his home and that he lies down with her. Because his presence of mind is impaired, he wonders if he might be killed,19 and having had that idea, the thought ‘Has the king not found out? He will come and murder me!’20 frightens him and he flees in terror. What do you think about this? By being frightened and fleeing in terror, do you think he would free himself of the fear he has because of the ruler’s wife?”
“He would not, Blessed One,” he replied. “Why is that? Blessed One, it is because that man has perceived a woman where there was no woman and has imagined something that did not truly exist.”
The Blessed One said, “Noble son, here there are some bhikṣus, bhikṣuṇīs, laymen, and laywomen who perceive desire where no desire exists. Afraid of the perils of desire, they seek escape from desire. They likewise perceive hatred where no hatred exists, and perceive ignorance where no ignorance exists. Afraid of the perils of ignorance, they seek escape from ignorance. They should be seen as just like that man. I do not say of such foolish people that they are cultivating the path; they should be said to be on the wrong course.
“Noble son, in the analogy it is like this: where nothing exists, that man superimposes something, thereby perceiving peril where there is no peril. Likewise, noble son, not knowing what the extent of desire is, childish ordinary beings are afraid of the perils of the extent of desire and seek escape from the extent of desire.21 Not knowing that the extent of hatred is the extent of nothing whatsoever, they are afraid of the perils of the extent of hatred[F.166.b] and seek escape from what is the extent of nothing whatsoever. Not knowing that the extent of ignorance is the extent of emptiness, they are afraid of the perils of the extent of ignorance and seek escape from what is the extent of emptiness. I do not say of such foolish people that they are cultivating the path; they should be said to be on the wrong course.22
“Noble son, this may be illustrated as follows: suppose someone were on a road at noon in the last month of summer. Oppressed by the heat, they become exhausted, thirsty, and miserable. The power of their intense conjecturing leads them to see, there in the wilderness, the mirage of a large, gently flowing river. Concluding that it is there in that way, they think, ‘I will not drink this water while I am still away from home,’ and they leave the mirage behind to go home. Arriving home, they keep on declaring: ‘Although I was thirsty and saw water, I left it behind without drinking it. What I did was amazing! I have done something truly wonderful!’
“Noble son, what do you think? Through not drinking water that did not exist and was not there23 and leaving it behind, has that person done something wonderful?”
“Blessed One, they have not,” he replied. “Why is that? Blessed One, it is because in that place there was no water, nor anything designated as water. Blessed One, they wrongly perceived nonexistent water, concluded that they had relinquished it, and have become joyful, ecstatic, and exhilarated by a joy that has no truth to it.”
The Blessed One said, “Noble son, here there are some bhikṣus, bhikṣuṇīs, laymen, and laywomen who do not understand the Tathāgata’s statements as they were intended. In order to abandon miserliness, they perceive generosity where there is no generosity, and conclude that it is there although it does not exist. Thinking, ‘We have eliminated the mind of miserliness!’ they become joyful, ecstatic, and exhilarated by a joy that has no truth to it.[F.167.a]
“In order to abandon the mind of violating discipline, they perceive ethical discipline where there is no ethical discipline and conclude that it is there although it does not exist. Thinking, ‘We have eliminated the mind of corrupted discipline!’ they become joyful, ecstatic, and exhilarated by a joy that has no truth to it.
“In order to abandon the mind of malice, they perceive patience where there is no patience, and conclude that it is there although it does not exist. Thinking, ‘We have eliminated the mind of malice!’ they become joyful, ecstatic, and exhilarated by a joy that has no truth to it.
“In order to abandon the mind of laziness, they perceive joyous effort where there is no joyous effort, and conclude that it is there although it does not exist. Thinking, ‘We have eliminated the mind of laziness!’ they become joyful, ecstatic, and exhilarated by a joy that has no truth to it.
“In order to abandon the mind of distraction, they perceive meditative concentration where there is no meditative concentration and conclude that it is there although it does not exist. Thinking, ‘We have eliminated the mind of distraction!’ they become joyful, ecstatic, and exhilarated by a joy that has no truth to it.
“In order to abandon the mind of ignorance, they perceive wisdom where there is no wisdom, and conclude that it is there although it does not exist. Thinking, ‘We have eliminated the mind of ignorance!’ they become joyful, ecstatic, and exhilarated by a joy that has no truth to it.
“They should be seen as just like that person. I do not say of such foolish people that they are cultivating the path; they should be said to be on the wrong course.
“Noble son, this is as in the analogy: just as that person wrongly perceives nonexistent water, concludes that they have relinquished the water, and becomes joyful, ecstatic, and exhilarated by a joy that has no truth to it,[F.167.b] so, too, noble son, here there are some bhikṣus, bhikṣuṇīs, laymen, and laywomen who do not understand the Tathāgata’s dharmadhātu and who wrongly perceive the result of a stream enterer where there is no result of a stream enterer, wrongly perceive the result of a once-returner where there is no result of a once-returner, wrongly perceive the result of a non-returner where there is no result of a non-returner, wrongly perceive the result of an arhat where there is no result of an arhat, wrongly perceive the result of a pratyekabuddha where there is no result of a pratyekabuddha, wrongly perceive the result of a buddha where there is no result of a buddha, and wrongly perceive the result of nirvāṇa where there is no result of nirvāṇa, concluding that they are there although they do not exist. They become joyful, ecstatic, and exhilarated by a joy that has no truth to it. They should be seen as just like that person. I do not say of such foolish people that they are cultivating the path; they should be said to be on the wrong course.
“Therefore, noble son, faithful noble sons and daughters should understand all phenomena to be just like the perception of water that arises in a mirage. Those who understand phenomena in this way are on the right course. Those who understand otherwise are not on the right course. I do not say of such foolish people that they are cultivating the path; they should be said to be on the wrong course.
“Noble son, this may be illustrated as follows: suppose a woman takes up a mirror and examines the features of her face. In the highly polished mirror she sees a beautiful and good-looking reflection. While she concludes about it that she will not give rise to desirous thoughts about this reflection, the reason being that it is not hers, nor does she belong to it, do you think, noble son,[F.168.a] it is amazing that similarly the reflection does not give rise to desirous thoughts about the woman?”
“No, Blessed One,” he replied. “Why is that? Because, Blessed One, a reflection does not have thoughts, and is unreal, so it will not have any thoughts at all about her.”
The Blessed One said, “Noble son, that is so. Although childish ordinary beings formulate ideas about forms by thinking ‘these forms are bad,’ ‘these are average,’ and ‘these are excellent,’ the forms themselves do not give rise to thoughts about the nature of forms, nor do they formulate ideas or have thoughts at all. It is the same for sounds, smells, tastes, and tactile objects.
“Moreover, childish ordinary beings formulate ideas about phenomena by thinking ‘these phenomena are bad,’ ‘these phenomena are average,’ and ‘these phenomena are excellent,’ yet the phenomena themselves do not give rise to thoughts about the nature of phenomena, nor do they formulate ideas or have thoughts at all.
“Noble son, just as in the analogy that woman perceives something that does not exist as existing and clings to the conclusion she has reached about it, so too, noble son, some bhikṣus, bhikṣuṇīs, laymen, and laywomen, understanding all phenomena to be like reflections, proclaim that they are not attached to forms. Likewise, they proclaim that they are not attached to sounds, smells, tastes, tactile objects, or phenomena. Stating that they have achieved restraint, they perceive those things as existing where there is nothing, conclude that they are there although they do not exist, and grasp at them. Moreover, they are pleased and praise themselves while denigrating others. They should be seen as just like that woman. I do not say of such foolish people that they are cultivating the path; they should be said to be on the wrong course.[F.168.b]
“Noble son, this may be illustrated as follows: a barren woman whose presence of mind was impaired vowed not to hope for a son. Another woman, while knowing and understanding her situation,24 to console her said, ‘You will have a boy with a fine figure, who is handsome and good looking, so I beg you not to make such a vow.’ The barren woman took heed of her words, and her presence of mind being impaired gave rise in her thoughts to the hope for a son, thinking, ‘I will have a boy with a fine figure, who is handsome and good looking.’ Due to her confusion, the mental image of his appearance exhilarated her.
“Just as it could not happen that such a boy would either have been born nor not have been born, so too, noble son, the Tathāgata, while knowing and seeing all phenomena to be like the son of a barren woman, to conform with the world teaches dualistically in saying, ‘In the past you were named so-and-so, your family was called such-and-such, your clan was called such-and-such, your complexion was like this, you ate such-and-such food, lived for such-and-such a duration, experienced such-and-such happiness and suffering, and had such-and-such a lifespan. In the future you will be like such-and-such: named so-and-so, your family called such-and-such, your clan called such-and-such, your complexion like this, you will eat such-and-such food, you will live for such-and-such a duration, you will experience such-and-such happiness and suffering, and you will have such-and-such a lifespan. Likewise, in the present, you are named so-and-so, your family is called such-and-such, your clan is called such-and-such, your complexion is like this, you eat such-and-such food, you live for such-and-such a duration, you experience such-and-such happiness and suffering, and you are able to have such-and-such a lifespan.’[F.169.a]
“In the analogy, noble son, through the barren woman’s own imagination, her idea of a son made her hopeful, but that son had the quality of being nonarising. As he had the quality of being nonarising, he had the quality of being nonceasing. As he had the quality of being nonceasing, he had the quality of being nondiscernible.
“Likewise, noble son, all forms, because of the nature of form, have the quality of being nonarising. Since they have the quality of being nonarising, they have the quality of being unceasing. Since they have the quality of being unceasing, they have the quality of being nondiscernible.
“All feelings, all perceptions, all karmic formations, and all consciousnesses are also like that: consciousnesses, because of the nature of consciousness, have the quality of being unborn. Since they have the quality of being unborn, they have the quality of being unceasing. Since they have the quality of being unceasing, they have the quality of being nondiscernible. Those who do not understand the nature of phenomena in that way are not on the right course. I do not say of such foolish people that they are cultivating the path; they should be said to be on the wrong course.
“Those who do understand phenomena in this way are on the right course; they stay on the path. They do not move away from the path. Why is that? Because to stay in the tathāgatas’ Dharma is to not move away, in the manner that the dharmadhātu does not move away. Therefore, noble son, if noble sons and noble daughters wish to practice the way of the tathāgatas’ Dharma, they should not move away from desire, should not move away from hatred, should not move away from ignorance, should not move away from all afflictions, and should not move away from the eye, forms, or eye consciousness. Likewise, they should not move away from the ear, sounds, or ear consciousness; from the nose, smells, or nose consciousness;[F.169.b] from the tongue, tastes, or tongue consciousness; from the body, tactile objects, or body consciousness; or from the mind, phenomena, or mental consciousness. They should not move away from the perception of all phenomena. They should also not stay in the perception of all phenomena. Why is that?
“If they were to move away from desire they would move away from the dharmadhātu. And why is that? Its real identity being unmoving emptiness, desire is itself the dharmadhātu.
“If they were to move away from hatred, they would move away from the dharmadhātu. Why is that? Its real identity being unmoving signlessness, hatred is itself the dharmadhātu.
“If they were to move away from ignorance, they would move away from the dharmadhātu. Why is that? Its real identity being unmoving wishlessness, ignorance is itself the dharmadhātu.
“If they were to move away from all afflictions, they would move away from the dharmadhātu. Why is that? Their real identity being the unmoving nature of all afflictions realized just as it is, all afflictions are themselves the dharmadhātu.
“If they were to move away from the eye, forms, and eye consciousness, they would move away from the dharmadhātu. Why is that? Their real identity being unmoving dependent origination, the eye, forms, and eye consciousnesses are themselves the dharmadhātu.
“Likewise, if they were to move away from the ear, sounds, and ear consciousness; from the nose, smells, and nose consciousness; from the tongue, tastes, and tongue consciousness; from the body, tactile objects, and body consciousness; or from the mind, phenomena, and mental consciousness, they would move away from the dharmadhātu. Why is that? Their real identity being unmoving dependent origination, the mind,[F.170.a] phenomena, and mental consciousness are themselves the dharmadhātu.
“If they were to move away from the perception of all phenomena they would move away from the dharmadhātu. Why is that? Its real identity being the unmoving nature of the perception of all phenomena realized just as it is, the perception of all phenomena is itself the dharmadhātu.
“It was with this in mind that I have said that when a wrong view is seen to be a wrong view, that is the right view of it. The right view not only does not move away from wrong views, by way of neither negating them nor affirming them, but also has no existence apart from wrong views being absent, because all phenomena are nondual. Seeing wrong views rightly, just as they are, is the right view, but in dualistic discrimination there is no right view.
“Noble son, this may be illustrated as follows: suppose a man were on a road at night, shrouded in darkness. In the empty wilderness he sees a thicket of trees, and there next to one of the trees he thinks he perceives a bandit. He becomes frightened and does not proceed on the path. Noble son, what do you think about this? Without it getting light and the trees becoming visible, would that man have passed beyond the thicket of trees, and would he have been free of fearing there was a bandit?”
“No, Blessed One,” he replied, “he would not.”
The Blessed One continued, “Noble son, what do you think? If it had got light and the trees had become visible, would he have passed beyond the thicket of trees, and would he have been free of fearing there was a bandit?”
“Yes, Blessed One,” he replied. “He would. Why is that? Because, Blessed One, where there was no danger the man thought he perceived danger, and imagined something that was untrue.”
The Blessed One said,[F.170.b] “Likewise, noble son, childish ordinary beings, due to their disputes, go wrong by making mistakes about what is untrue. All those whose vision is enveloped in the darkness of ignorance seek escape from saṃsāra because they are frightened by dangers of saṃsāra that do not exist but that they have superimposed. In that saṃsāra within which they think they perceive dangers and that is not ultimately to be apprehended, they seek what they say is a nirvāṇa that is free of dangers.
“Those who are mentored by a spiritual friend and are on the right course know fully just as it is that saṃsāra itself is nirvāṇa. They also know fully that all phenomena are nonarising. Those who are thus on the right course do not take up any phenomena at all, nor do they discard them, negate them, or affirm them. As they stay in the dharmadhātu, they do not move away. As they do not move away, they do not cultivate staying. As they do not cultivate it, they are without staying. As they are without staying, they are without moving away. This is the way of the tathāgatas’ Dharma that is without moving away. In it no phenomena are apprehended to move away from, to pass beyond, to discard, or to take up. Why is that? The way of the Dharma is the way of space: space is without moving away and without surpassing.
“Noble son, those who know how to stay on the right course in this way cannot be shifted or shaken from realizing that knowledge, even by all sentient beings. Why is that? Because in this way they have attained nonmoving wisdom.”
The venerable Śāriputra then got up from his seat, draped his upper robe over one shoulder, and knelt with his right knee on the ground. His palms joined, he bowed toward the Blessed One and said, “Blessed One, I proclaim that the noble sons and noble daughters who take up this presentation of Dharma,[F.171.a] master it, or have faith in it are supreme among the wise. Why is that? Blessed One, it is because this presentation of Dharma clears away all ignorance and contains all knowledge.”
Then, the venerable Mahāmaudgalyāyana said to the Blessed One, “Blessed One, I proclaim that the noble sons and noble daughters who take up this presentation of Dharma, master it, or have faith in it are supreme among those with magical power. Why is that? Blessed One, it is not a magical power to cause someone to see something.25 The supreme magical power, Blessed One, is not to be convinced—even for the duration of a mere snap of the fingers—by all phenomena causing one to see something.”26
Then, the venerable Revata said to the Blessed One, “Blessed One, I proclaim that the noble sons and noble daughters who take up this presentation of Dharma, master it, or have faith in it are supreme among those with concentration. Why is that? Because, Blessed One, this presentation of Dharma truly burns up27 all afflictions.”
Then, the venerable Subhūti said to the Blessed One, “Blessed One, I proclaim that the noble sons and noble daughters who take up this presentation of Dharma, master it, or have faith in it are supreme among those who abide without afflictions. Why is that? Because, Blessed One, this presentation is free of all enemies—the afflictions—and unstained by all phenomena.”[F.171.b]
Then, the venerable Mahākāśyapa said to the Blessed One, “Blessed One, I proclaim that the noble sons and noble daughters who take up this presentation of Dharma, master it, or have faith in it are supreme among those who propound ascetic practices. Why is that? Because, Blessed One, this presentation of Dharma has purified all afflictions and does not have the defilement brought about by all phenomena.”
Then, the venerable Rāhula said to the Blessed One, “Blessed One, I proclaim that the noble sons and noble daughters who take up this presentation of Dharma, master it, or have faith in it are supreme among those who delight in the trainings. Why is that? Because, Blessed One, this presentation of Dharma is the perfection of all trainings.”
Then, the venerable Upāli said to the Blessed One, “Blessed One, I proclaim that the noble sons and noble daughters who take up this presentation of Dharma, master it, or have faith in it are supreme among those who uphold the vinaya. Why is that? Because, Blessed One, this presentation of Dharma causes one to eliminate all afflictions.”
Then, the venerable Ānanda spoke thus to the Blessed One: “Blessed One, I proclaim that the noble sons and noble daughters who take up this presentation of Dharma, master it, or have faith in it are supreme among the erudite. Why is that? Because, Blessed One, this presentation of Dharma is possessed of all learning.”
In this way all the great śrāvakas[F.172.a] praised this presentation of Dharma through proclamations of their own foremost quality.
The Blessed One then said to the venerable Ānanda, “This being so, Ānanda, by staying in the non-negation and non-affirmation of all phenomena, teach this enlightenment of buddhahood yourself. Teach the Dharma that there are no phenomena at all to be discarded and nothing to be attained. Teach the Dharma that there is nothing to be understood, to be abandoned, to be cultivated, to be actualized, or to be realized, no departing from saṃsāra, no going to nirvāṇa, no achieving the result of a stream enterer, of a once-returner, of a non-returner, and no achieving the result of an arhat. Why? Because, Ānanda, all phenomena are the phenomena of stream enterers, once-returners, non-returners, and arhats due to the sameness of the dharmadhātu.
“This being so, Ānanda, to individuals of the Bodhisattva Vehicle teach the Dharma that there is no passing beyond the levels of śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas, and no achieving of the qualities of a buddha. Why is that? Because, Ānanda, all phenomena are the phenomena of buddhas due to the sameness of the dharmadhātu.
“Moreover, Ānanda, to bhikṣus who engage in yogic practice with the wish to actualize arhatship, teach the Dharma that there is no abandoning of attachment, of hatred, or of ignorance.
“Teach the Dharma that the Tathāgata is not seen, that there is no Dharma to be heard, and that the Saṅgha is not to be honored.
“Ānanda, attachment, hatred, and ignorance are just not to be abandoned, because attachment, hatred, and ignorance[F.172.b] are vacuous. Ānanda, momentary things are not to be abandoned, because they do not exist.”
The venerable Ānanda then asked the Blessed One, “Blessed One, how is it that the Tathāgata is not seen? How is it that there is no Dharma to be heard? How is it that the Saṅgha is not to be honored?”
The Blessed One replied, “Ānanda, the Tathāgata is indemonstrable. He cannot be seen with the eyes. Ānanda, the Dharma is inexpressible. It cannot be heard with the ears. Ānanda, the Saṅgha is unconditioned. It cannot be honored with body, speech, or mind.”28
The venerable Ānanda then said to the Blessed One, “Blessed One, the true nature of the blessed buddhas that is difficult to realize in this way is astonishing.”
The Blessed One said, “Ānanda, it is as you say. It is difficult to realize the true nature of the blessed buddhas as presented here. Why is that? Ānanda, one must purify the mind from all afflictions, yet also neither move away from any phenomenon, nor pass beyond any phenomenon.
“Ānanda, know that those sentient beings who enter the way of the Dharma of the tathāgatas through this presentation are astonishing. Ānanda, whichever noble sons or noble daughters who have gone forth into this teaching of mine uphold this presentation of Dharma, master it, or have faith in it have properly eaten the foods of the land. They have gone forth well into the teachings of the Tathāgata. The human body they have attained has been attained well. They have subjugated the evil Māra. They have definitively overcome the conceit of thinking of themselves.[F.173.a] They have trained in regarding it as worthy of offerings. They should uphold it as worthy of honor. They should view it as a field of merit.29 Why is that? Because, Ānanda, those with manifest pride, those who apprehend a result, those who apprehend enlightenment, and those who have not served the past victors cannot accept this presentation of Dharma.”
When this presentation of Dharma was taught, the bodhisattva Dṛḍhādhyāśaya achieved the acceptance that phenomena are nonarising.
The Blessed One then smiled. As is the nature of the buddha bhagavāns, at that time myriad light rays of many colors issued forth from the Blessed One’s mouth—namely, blue, yellow, red, white, crimson, crystal, and silver. They pervaded boundless, limitless world systems with light. Having reached all the way up to the world of Brahmā they returned and circled the Blessed One three times then disappeared into the crown of the Blessed One’s head.
Then, through the blessings of the Buddha, the venerable Ānanda stood up from his seat, and, draping his upper robe over one shoulder, knelt with his right knee on the ground. With palms joined, he bowed toward the Blessed One and said, “Blessed One, it is not without cause or condition that the tathāgatas smile. What is the cause and what is the condition for your smile?”
The Blessed One replied to the venerable Ānanda, “Ānanda, two hundred arrogant bhikṣus in the saṅgha heard this teaching on the absence of arrogance, and their minds were liberated from the defilements, without further appropriation.[F.173.b] The bodhisattva Dṛḍhādhyāśaya achieved acceptance of unborn phenomena. Ānanda, the bodhisattva Dṛḍhādhyāśaya will manifestly awaken to unsurpassed, perfectly complete enlightenment after ten thousand eons. In the eon known as Illumination of All Jewels, and in the world system known as Adorned with All Flowers, he will become a tathāgata, arhat, perfectly complete buddha known as Possessing the Heart of the Glorious Jewel Lotus. His buddha field will possess an unfathomable array of good qualities. Moreover, that buddha field will be filled entirely with bodhisattvas.”
The venerable Ānanda then asked the Blessed One, “Blessed One, what is the name of this presentation of Dharma? How should we remember it?”
The Blessed One replied, “Ānanda, you should thus remember this presentation of Dharma as All Phenomena Not Moving Away. You should also remember it as The Episode of Dṛḍhādhyāśaya.”
After the Blessed One had spoken these words, the venerable Ānanda, the bodhisattva Dṛḍhādhyāśaya, the bodhisattvas, and the bhikṣus, along with everyone else in attendance and the world with its gods, humans, asuras, and gandharvas, rejoiced in what the Blessed One had said.
This completes the noble Mahāyāna sūtra “The Episode of Dṛḍhādhyāśaya.”
Translated, edited, and finalized by the Indian preceptors Surendrabodhi and Prajñāvarman, the chief Tibetan editor and translator Bandé Yeshé Dé, and others.
The bodhisattva Dṛḍhādhyāśaya sets out for alms one morning in the city of Rājagṛha. Catching sight there of a merchant’s beautiful daughter, he is overcome with attraction. Unable to quell his feelings, he rushes out of town with an empty begging bowl—but finds himself being pursued by a replica of the merchant’s daughter emanated by the Buddha. Distressed, the bodhisattva inquires about the nature of these events to the Blessed One, who then gives a discourse on nonduality by focusing on the erroneous manner in which certain bhikṣus, bhikṣuṇīs, laymen, and laywomen take the path as a means of escape. At its conclusion, eight great śrāvakas each praise the discourse as engendering their own foremost quality in others.
This publication was completed under the patronage and supervision of 84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha.
The text was translated, edited, and introduced by the 84000 translation team. Sophie McGrath produced the translation and wrote the introduction. It was checked against the Tibetan by Laura Goetz. Nathaniel Rich and John Canti edited the translation and the introduction, and Dawn Collins copyedited the text. Sameer Dhingra was in charge of the digital publication process.
The Episode of Dṛḍhādhyāśaya is a relatively short sūtra that begins by introducing the bodhisattva-monk Dṛḍhādhyāśaya, who instantly falls in love with a merchant’s daughter while on an alms round. He tries to remedy his desire with thoughts of the unpleasantness of her body but fails, and so removes himself from her presence without receiving alms. The Buddha, who is nearby, is aware of Dṛḍhādhyāśaya’s situation and, in order to tame him, chases him with an apparition of the beautiful girl. The bodhisattva flees in fright, but the apparition catches up with him and tells him that fleeing will not help—only relinquishing his desire will. Distressed, the bodhisattva Dṛḍhādhyāśaya goes to the Buddha to request a teaching through which he can understand the nature of these events.
Now that the bodhisattva Dṛḍhādhyāśaya is primed for such a teaching, the Buddha delivers a concise yet uncompromising and profound discourse on nonduality using the analogies of a magical illusion, a dream, a mirage, a reflection, the son of a barren woman, and a visual hallucination. Each analogy is used to indicate the erroneous way certain bhikṣus, bhikṣuṇīs, laymen, and laywomen present in the audience perceive things that do not really exist, and how they analyze whether they should take up or discard them, affirm or negate them. Of such practitioners the Buddha repeatedly states, “I do not say of such foolish people that they are cultivating the path; they should be said to be on the wrong course.” He declares that only a nondualistic approach is the correct way to practice: from the standpoint of the dharmadhātu one should not take up, discard, negate, or affirm any phenomenon.
While there is no extant Sanskrit manuscript of The Episode of Dṛḍhādhyāśaya, the work was clearly known to Indian scholars, and indeed bears the distinction of being cited as scriptural authority in treatises both on Madhyamaka and on buddha nature. A longer portion of this text1 is cited in the twenty-third chapter of Candrakīrti’s The Clear Words (Prasannapadā, Toh 3860), of which there are multiple Sanskrit manuscripts extant. This citation is made in the commentary to verse 142 of the “Examination of Errors” chapter of Nāgārjuna’s Fundamental Treatise on the Middle Way (Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, Toh 3824).3
The Episode of Dṛḍhādhyāśaya has also been used as a scriptural source for the first three of the seven vajra topics (vajrapāda)4 in Maitreya’s Ratnagotravibhāga (Toh 4024)—namely, Buddha, Dharma, and Saṅgha. The prose commentary (vyākhyā, Toh 4025) to the root verses, which the Tibetan tradition attributes to Asaṅga,5 cites the following passage from a section that describes the text’s entrustment to Ānanda near the end of The Episode of Dṛḍhādhyāśaya:
“Ānanda, the Tathāgata is indemonstrable. He cannot be seen with the eyes. Ānanda, the Dharma is inexpressible. It cannot be heard with the ears. Ānanda, the Saṅgha is unconditioned. It cannot be honored with body, speech, or mind.”6
The Commentary on the Meaning of the Words,7 one of the earliest Tibetan commentaries on the Ratnagotravibhāga and its commentary, which has no author attribution, states that this sūtra passage is used as a source for the first three vajra topics because it indicates that they are difficult to realize nonconceptually—which is the fundamental feature of all seven vajra topics.8
The sūtra itself is unrelated in theme to any of the sources of buddha-nature doctrine itself, but because it is cited by Asaṅga in his commentary, it has been included in lists of sūtras of “definitive meaning” (Tib. nges don) by various Tibetan commentators such as Rinchen Yeshé (thirteenth/fourteenth century)9 and Gorampa Sönam Sengé (1429–89).10
This sūtra appears in all Kangyurs with the same Tibetan title, lhag pa’i bsam pa brtan pa’i le’u, but with two different Sanskrit titles: Sthīrādhyāśayaparivarta and Dṛḍhādhyāśayaparivarta.11 Some Kangyurs do not give a Sanskrit title.12 The sūtra is cited in Sanskrit manuscripts of the Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā with the title Dṛḍhādhyāśayaparivarta13 and in Candrakīrti’s The Clear Words with the title Dṛḍhādhyāśayaparipṛcchā in chapter 1 but Dṛḍhāśayaparipṛcchā in chapter 23.14 Given these mentions in the Sanskrit literature, it is likely that the title Sthīrādhyāśayaparivarta represents a back-translation from the Tibetan.
According to the colophon, The Episode of Dṛḍhādhyāśaya was translated into Tibetan by the Indian preceptors Surendrabodhi and Prajñāvarman and the Tibetan Yeshé Dé. The title is listed in the early ninth-century Denkarma (ldan dkar ma) and Phangthangma (’phang thang ma) imperial inventories, but in both, as well as in the lists of canonical texts compiled by Chomden Rikpai Raltri and Butön in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries respectively, the corresponding text is said to have four bam po (fascicles), i.e., to be much longer than the present text, so we cannot be entirely sure that this text is the one referenced.15 Despite these discrepancies, it seems reasonably likely that it was translated by the early ninth century. It is not present in the Chinese canon.
This English translation was prepared based on the Tibetan translation in the Degé Kangyur, in consultation with the Comparative Edition (Tib. dpe bsdur ma) and the Stok Palace Kangyur version. Arihiro Kosaka’s (2021) translation and Sanskrit critical edition of the twenty-third chapter of Candrakīrti’s The Clear Words, which (as mentioned above) contains a lengthy citation from this sūtra, proved helpful for this translation.
[F.164.a]Homage to all buddhas and bodhisattvas!
Thus did I hear at one time. The Blessed One was residing on Vulture Peak, in Rājagṛha, together with a great monastic saṅgha of 1,250 bhikṣus and 500 bodhisattvas.
At that time, early in the morning, the bodhisattva Dṛḍhādhyāśaya put on his lower and upper robes and, carrying his begging bowl, went for alms in Rājagṛha. While the bodhisattva Dṛḍhādhyāśaya was on his alms round from house to house in the city of Rājagṛha he saw a girl inside the house of a merchant. She was beautiful, good looking, with the most splendid and excellent complexion. Seeing this girl, he was overcome with the pangs of desire. No matter how much he told himself to focus his attention on her unpleasantness, all he could do was think of her beauty. So, feeling overwhelmed by his ardor, the bodhisattva Dṛḍhādhyāśaya did not accept alms from that household and left the city of Rājagṛha with an empty begging bowl.
When he tried not to let his desirous thoughts come to mind, he could not dispel those desirous thoughts using the force of any of his deliberations.[F.164.b] Since the Blessed One’s pure divine eye transcends that of humans, he saw that the bodhisattva Dṛḍhādhyāśaya had desirous thoughts and could not dispel those desirous thoughts using the force of any of his deliberations.
In order to train the bodhisattva Dṛḍhādhyāśaya, the Blessed One emanated a girl just like the daughter of the merchant on the very road upon which the bodhisattva Dṛḍhādhyāśaya was walking.
Upon seeing the emanated girl, the bodhisattva Dṛḍhādhyāśaya asked, “Noble daughter, where are you going?”
“I am going wherever you are going,” the emanated girl replied.
The bodhisattva Dṛḍhādhyāśaya then fled in fear and fright, fleeing up to an impassable hilltop. But the emanated girl followed him up that impassable hilltop.
Exhausted, the bodhisattva Dṛḍhādhyāśaya sat down. The emanated girl sat down in front of the bodhisattva Dṛḍhādhyāśaya and, sitting there, spoke this verse:
With these words, the emanated girl flung herself from the impassable hilltop. As she plunged down, she fell apart: her head went one way, her arms another way, and her legs yet another. All her limbs and other parts of her body disintegrated. Just as snow that is touched heats up, melts, and is absorbed into the ground, so, too, did the emanated girl vanish.
Since the bodhisattva Dṛḍhādhyāśaya[F.165.a] could no longer see the emanated girl, his desirous thoughts subsided and he began to feel greatly sorrowful.
Greatly sorrowful as he was, he heeded the verse spoken by the emanated girl, and thought, “I will ask the Blessed One about all that has happened. When I do so, the Blessed One, knowing my mind, will certainly give a teaching by which I will clearly realize the Dharma.”
Leaving the impassable hilltop, the bodhisattva Dṛḍhādhyāśaya went to where the Blessed One was. He bowed his head at the feet of the Blessed One and sat down to one side.
At that time, the Blessed One was teaching the Dharma while being honored by a retinue of many hundreds of thousands that surrounded him. When the bodhisattva Dṛḍhādhyāśaya knew that the Blessed One had finished speaking, he draped his upper robe over one shoulder and knelt on the ground. With palms joined he bowed toward the Blessed One and asked him about all that had happened.
16The Blessed One said, “Noble son, that is what it is like for someone who seeks to use the path to escape.17 The Tathāgata, noble son, has not said that desire is eliminated by eliminating what one desires. Likewise, the Tathāgata has not said that hatred and ignorance are eliminated by eliminating what one hates or what one is ignorant about. Why is that? Noble son, the Tathāgata does not teach the Dharma because there is anything to give up or to acquire. He does not teach it because there is anything to know, abandon, cultivate, experience, or realize,[F.165.b] or a saṃsāra to leave, a nirvāṇa to go to, or anything to negate, affirm, or divide.
“Noble son, dualistic division is not the true nature of the tathāgatas. People who conduct themselves dualistically are not on the right course. Noble son, what is dualistic? The thought ‘I will abandon desire’ is dualistic. The thoughts ‘I will abandon hatred’ and ‘I will abandon ignorance’ are dualistic. People who conduct themselves this way are not on the right course and should be said to be on the wrong course.
“Noble son, this may be illustrated as follows: suppose a magician conjures up a dancer in a show, and a certain man becomes desirous upon seeing the magically conjured up woman. His mind wrapped up in his desire, and fearful and shy on account of the crowd, he gets up from his seat and leaves, and once he has left, he focuses on the unpleasantness of that woman and on her impermanence, suffering, emptiness, and lack of self.18 Noble son, what do you think? Would that man be on the right course, or would he be on the wrong course?”
The bodhisattva Dṛḍhādhyāśaya replied, “Blessed One, that man’s endeavors to focus on the unpleasantness of a nonexistent woman and on her impermanence, suffering, emptiness, and lack of self would have been wrong.”
The Blessed One said, “Noble son, here there are some bhikṣus, bhikṣuṇīs, laymen, and laywomen who focus on the unpleasantness of phenomena that are unborn and unarisen, and focus on their impermanence, suffering, emptiness, and lack of self: they should be seen as just like that man. I do not say of such foolish people that they are cultivating the path;[F.166.a] they should be said to be on the wrong course.
“Noble son, this may be illustrated as follows: suppose a man were to fall asleep and dream that the ruler’s wife is in his home and that he lies down with her. Because his presence of mind is impaired, he wonders if he might be killed,19 and having had that idea, the thought ‘Has the king not found out? He will come and murder me!’20 frightens him and he flees in terror. What do you think about this? By being frightened and fleeing in terror, do you think he would free himself of the fear he has because of the ruler’s wife?”
“He would not, Blessed One,” he replied. “Why is that? Blessed One, it is because that man has perceived a woman where there was no woman and has imagined something that did not truly exist.”
The Blessed One said, “Noble son, here there are some bhikṣus, bhikṣuṇīs, laymen, and laywomen who perceive desire where no desire exists. Afraid of the perils of desire, they seek escape from desire. They likewise perceive hatred where no hatred exists, and perceive ignorance where no ignorance exists. Afraid of the perils of ignorance, they seek escape from ignorance. They should be seen as just like that man. I do not say of such foolish people that they are cultivating the path; they should be said to be on the wrong course.
“Noble son, in the analogy it is like this: where nothing exists, that man superimposes something, thereby perceiving peril where there is no peril. Likewise, noble son, not knowing what the extent of desire is, childish ordinary beings are afraid of the perils of the extent of desire and seek escape from the extent of desire.21 Not knowing that the extent of hatred is the extent of nothing whatsoever, they are afraid of the perils of the extent of hatred[F.166.b] and seek escape from what is the extent of nothing whatsoever. Not knowing that the extent of ignorance is the extent of emptiness, they are afraid of the perils of the extent of ignorance and seek escape from what is the extent of emptiness. I do not say of such foolish people that they are cultivating the path; they should be said to be on the wrong course.22
“Noble son, this may be illustrated as follows: suppose someone were on a road at noon in the last month of summer. Oppressed by the heat, they become exhausted, thirsty, and miserable. The power of their intense conjecturing leads them to see, there in the wilderness, the mirage of a large, gently flowing river. Concluding that it is there in that way, they think, ‘I will not drink this water while I am still away from home,’ and they leave the mirage behind to go home. Arriving home, they keep on declaring: ‘Although I was thirsty and saw water, I left it behind without drinking it. What I did was amazing! I have done something truly wonderful!’
“Noble son, what do you think? Through not drinking water that did not exist and was not there23 and leaving it behind, has that person done something wonderful?”
“Blessed One, they have not,” he replied. “Why is that? Blessed One, it is because in that place there was no water, nor anything designated as water. Blessed One, they wrongly perceived nonexistent water, concluded that they had relinquished it, and have become joyful, ecstatic, and exhilarated by a joy that has no truth to it.”
The Blessed One said, “Noble son, here there are some bhikṣus, bhikṣuṇīs, laymen, and laywomen who do not understand the Tathāgata’s statements as they were intended. In order to abandon miserliness, they perceive generosity where there is no generosity, and conclude that it is there although it does not exist. Thinking, ‘We have eliminated the mind of miserliness!’ they become joyful, ecstatic, and exhilarated by a joy that has no truth to it.[F.167.a]
“In order to abandon the mind of violating discipline, they perceive ethical discipline where there is no ethical discipline and conclude that it is there although it does not exist. Thinking, ‘We have eliminated the mind of corrupted discipline!’ they become joyful, ecstatic, and exhilarated by a joy that has no truth to it.
“In order to abandon the mind of malice, they perceive patience where there is no patience, and conclude that it is there although it does not exist. Thinking, ‘We have eliminated the mind of malice!’ they become joyful, ecstatic, and exhilarated by a joy that has no truth to it.
“In order to abandon the mind of laziness, they perceive joyous effort where there is no joyous effort, and conclude that it is there although it does not exist. Thinking, ‘We have eliminated the mind of laziness!’ they become joyful, ecstatic, and exhilarated by a joy that has no truth to it.
“In order to abandon the mind of distraction, they perceive meditative concentration where there is no meditative concentration and conclude that it is there although it does not exist. Thinking, ‘We have eliminated the mind of distraction!’ they become joyful, ecstatic, and exhilarated by a joy that has no truth to it.
“In order to abandon the mind of ignorance, they perceive wisdom where there is no wisdom, and conclude that it is there although it does not exist. Thinking, ‘We have eliminated the mind of ignorance!’ they become joyful, ecstatic, and exhilarated by a joy that has no truth to it.
“They should be seen as just like that person. I do not say of such foolish people that they are cultivating the path; they should be said to be on the wrong course.
“Noble son, this is as in the analogy: just as that person wrongly perceives nonexistent water, concludes that they have relinquished the water, and becomes joyful, ecstatic, and exhilarated by a joy that has no truth to it,[F.167.b] so, too, noble son, here there are some bhikṣus, bhikṣuṇīs, laymen, and laywomen who do not understand the Tathāgata’s dharmadhātu and who wrongly perceive the result of a stream enterer where there is no result of a stream enterer, wrongly perceive the result of a once-returner where there is no result of a once-returner, wrongly perceive the result of a non-returner where there is no result of a non-returner, wrongly perceive the result of an arhat where there is no result of an arhat, wrongly perceive the result of a pratyekabuddha where there is no result of a pratyekabuddha, wrongly perceive the result of a buddha where there is no result of a buddha, and wrongly perceive the result of nirvāṇa where there is no result of nirvāṇa, concluding that they are there although they do not exist. They become joyful, ecstatic, and exhilarated by a joy that has no truth to it. They should be seen as just like that person. I do not say of such foolish people that they are cultivating the path; they should be said to be on the wrong course.
“Therefore, noble son, faithful noble sons and daughters should understand all phenomena to be just like the perception of water that arises in a mirage. Those who understand phenomena in this way are on the right course. Those who understand otherwise are not on the right course. I do not say of such foolish people that they are cultivating the path; they should be said to be on the wrong course.
“Noble son, this may be illustrated as follows: suppose a woman takes up a mirror and examines the features of her face. In the highly polished mirror she sees a beautiful and good-looking reflection. While she concludes about it that she will not give rise to desirous thoughts about this reflection, the reason being that it is not hers, nor does she belong to it, do you think, noble son,[F.168.a] it is amazing that similarly the reflection does not give rise to desirous thoughts about the woman?”
“No, Blessed One,” he replied. “Why is that? Because, Blessed One, a reflection does not have thoughts, and is unreal, so it will not have any thoughts at all about her.”
The Blessed One said, “Noble son, that is so. Although childish ordinary beings formulate ideas about forms by thinking ‘these forms are bad,’ ‘these are average,’ and ‘these are excellent,’ the forms themselves do not give rise to thoughts about the nature of forms, nor do they formulate ideas or have thoughts at all. It is the same for sounds, smells, tastes, and tactile objects.
“Moreover, childish ordinary beings formulate ideas about phenomena by thinking ‘these phenomena are bad,’ ‘these phenomena are average,’ and ‘these phenomena are excellent,’ yet the phenomena themselves do not give rise to thoughts about the nature of phenomena, nor do they formulate ideas or have thoughts at all.
“Noble son, just as in the analogy that woman perceives something that does not exist as existing and clings to the conclusion she has reached about it, so too, noble son, some bhikṣus, bhikṣuṇīs, laymen, and laywomen, understanding all phenomena to be like reflections, proclaim that they are not attached to forms. Likewise, they proclaim that they are not attached to sounds, smells, tastes, tactile objects, or phenomena. Stating that they have achieved restraint, they perceive those things as existing where there is nothing, conclude that they are there although they do not exist, and grasp at them. Moreover, they are pleased and praise themselves while denigrating others. They should be seen as just like that woman. I do not say of such foolish people that they are cultivating the path; they should be said to be on the wrong course.[F.168.b]
“Noble son, this may be illustrated as follows: a barren woman whose presence of mind was impaired vowed not to hope for a son. Another woman, while knowing and understanding her situation,24 to console her said, ‘You will have a boy with a fine figure, who is handsome and good looking, so I beg you not to make such a vow.’ The barren woman took heed of her words, and her presence of mind being impaired gave rise in her thoughts to the hope for a son, thinking, ‘I will have a boy with a fine figure, who is handsome and good looking.’ Due to her confusion, the mental image of his appearance exhilarated her.
“Just as it could not happen that such a boy would either have been born nor not have been born, so too, noble son, the Tathāgata, while knowing and seeing all phenomena to be like the son of a barren woman, to conform with the world teaches dualistically in saying, ‘In the past you were named so-and-so, your family was called such-and-such, your clan was called such-and-such, your complexion was like this, you ate such-and-such food, lived for such-and-such a duration, experienced such-and-such happiness and suffering, and had such-and-such a lifespan. In the future you will be like such-and-such: named so-and-so, your family called such-and-such, your clan called such-and-such, your complexion like this, you will eat such-and-such food, you will live for such-and-such a duration, you will experience such-and-such happiness and suffering, and you will have such-and-such a lifespan. Likewise, in the present, you are named so-and-so, your family is called such-and-such, your clan is called such-and-such, your complexion is like this, you eat such-and-such food, you live for such-and-such a duration, you experience such-and-such happiness and suffering, and you are able to have such-and-such a lifespan.’[F.169.a]
“In the analogy, noble son, through the barren woman’s own imagination, her idea of a son made her hopeful, but that son had the quality of being nonarising. As he had the quality of being nonarising, he had the quality of being nonceasing. As he had the quality of being nonceasing, he had the quality of being nondiscernible.
“Likewise, noble son, all forms, because of the nature of form, have the quality of being nonarising. Since they have the quality of being nonarising, they have the quality of being unceasing. Since they have the quality of being unceasing, they have the quality of being nondiscernible.
“All feelings, all perceptions, all karmic formations, and all consciousnesses are also like that: consciousnesses, because of the nature of consciousness, have the quality of being unborn. Since they have the quality of being unborn, they have the quality of being unceasing. Since they have the quality of being unceasing, they have the quality of being nondiscernible. Those who do not understand the nature of phenomena in that way are not on the right course. I do not say of such foolish people that they are cultivating the path; they should be said to be on the wrong course.
“Those who do understand phenomena in this way are on the right course; they stay on the path. They do not move away from the path. Why is that? Because to stay in the tathāgatas’ Dharma is to not move away, in the manner that the dharmadhātu does not move away. Therefore, noble son, if noble sons and noble daughters wish to practice the way of the tathāgatas’ Dharma, they should not move away from desire, should not move away from hatred, should not move away from ignorance, should not move away from all afflictions, and should not move away from the eye, forms, or eye consciousness. Likewise, they should not move away from the ear, sounds, or ear consciousness; from the nose, smells, or nose consciousness;[F.169.b] from the tongue, tastes, or tongue consciousness; from the body, tactile objects, or body consciousness; or from the mind, phenomena, or mental consciousness. They should not move away from the perception of all phenomena. They should also not stay in the perception of all phenomena. Why is that?
“If they were to move away from desire they would move away from the dharmadhātu. And why is that? Its real identity being unmoving emptiness, desire is itself the dharmadhātu.
“If they were to move away from hatred, they would move away from the dharmadhātu. Why is that? Its real identity being unmoving signlessness, hatred is itself the dharmadhātu.
“If they were to move away from ignorance, they would move away from the dharmadhātu. Why is that? Its real identity being unmoving wishlessness, ignorance is itself the dharmadhātu.
“If they were to move away from all afflictions, they would move away from the dharmadhātu. Why is that? Their real identity being the unmoving nature of all afflictions realized just as it is, all afflictions are themselves the dharmadhātu.
“If they were to move away from the eye, forms, and eye consciousness, they would move away from the dharmadhātu. Why is that? Their real identity being unmoving dependent origination, the eye, forms, and eye consciousnesses are themselves the dharmadhātu.
“Likewise, if they were to move away from the ear, sounds, and ear consciousness; from the nose, smells, and nose consciousness; from the tongue, tastes, and tongue consciousness; from the body, tactile objects, and body consciousness; or from the mind, phenomena, and mental consciousness, they would move away from the dharmadhātu. Why is that? Their real identity being unmoving dependent origination, the mind,[F.170.a] phenomena, and mental consciousness are themselves the dharmadhātu.
“If they were to move away from the perception of all phenomena they would move away from the dharmadhātu. Why is that? Its real identity being the unmoving nature of the perception of all phenomena realized just as it is, the perception of all phenomena is itself the dharmadhātu.
“It was with this in mind that I have said that when a wrong view is seen to be a wrong view, that is the right view of it. The right view not only does not move away from wrong views, by way of neither negating them nor affirming them, but also has no existence apart from wrong views being absent, because all phenomena are nondual. Seeing wrong views rightly, just as they are, is the right view, but in dualistic discrimination there is no right view.
“Noble son, this may be illustrated as follows: suppose a man were on a road at night, shrouded in darkness. In the empty wilderness he sees a thicket of trees, and there next to one of the trees he thinks he perceives a bandit. He becomes frightened and does not proceed on the path. Noble son, what do you think about this? Without it getting light and the trees becoming visible, would that man have passed beyond the thicket of trees, and would he have been free of fearing there was a bandit?”
“No, Blessed One,” he replied, “he would not.”
The Blessed One continued, “Noble son, what do you think? If it had got light and the trees had become visible, would he have passed beyond the thicket of trees, and would he have been free of fearing there was a bandit?”
“Yes, Blessed One,” he replied. “He would. Why is that? Because, Blessed One, where there was no danger the man thought he perceived danger, and imagined something that was untrue.”
The Blessed One said,[F.170.b] “Likewise, noble son, childish ordinary beings, due to their disputes, go wrong by making mistakes about what is untrue. All those whose vision is enveloped in the darkness of ignorance seek escape from saṃsāra because they are frightened by dangers of saṃsāra that do not exist but that they have superimposed. In that saṃsāra within which they think they perceive dangers and that is not ultimately to be apprehended, they seek what they say is a nirvāṇa that is free of dangers.
“Those who are mentored by a spiritual friend and are on the right course know fully just as it is that saṃsāra itself is nirvāṇa. They also know fully that all phenomena are nonarising. Those who are thus on the right course do not take up any phenomena at all, nor do they discard them, negate them, or affirm them. As they stay in the dharmadhātu, they do not move away. As they do not move away, they do not cultivate staying. As they do not cultivate it, they are without staying. As they are without staying, they are without moving away. This is the way of the tathāgatas’ Dharma that is without moving away. In it no phenomena are apprehended to move away from, to pass beyond, to discard, or to take up. Why is that? The way of the Dharma is the way of space: space is without moving away and without surpassing.
“Noble son, those who know how to stay on the right course in this way cannot be shifted or shaken from realizing that knowledge, even by all sentient beings. Why is that? Because in this way they have attained nonmoving wisdom.”
The venerable Śāriputra then got up from his seat, draped his upper robe over one shoulder, and knelt with his right knee on the ground. His palms joined, he bowed toward the Blessed One and said, “Blessed One, I proclaim that the noble sons and noble daughters who take up this presentation of Dharma,[F.171.a] master it, or have faith in it are supreme among the wise. Why is that? Blessed One, it is because this presentation of Dharma clears away all ignorance and contains all knowledge.”
Then, the venerable Mahāmaudgalyāyana said to the Blessed One, “Blessed One, I proclaim that the noble sons and noble daughters who take up this presentation of Dharma, master it, or have faith in it are supreme among those with magical power. Why is that? Blessed One, it is not a magical power to cause someone to see something.25 The supreme magical power, Blessed One, is not to be convinced—even for the duration of a mere snap of the fingers—by all phenomena causing one to see something.”26
Then, the venerable Revata said to the Blessed One, “Blessed One, I proclaim that the noble sons and noble daughters who take up this presentation of Dharma, master it, or have faith in it are supreme among those with concentration. Why is that? Because, Blessed One, this presentation of Dharma truly burns up27 all afflictions.”
Then, the venerable Subhūti said to the Blessed One, “Blessed One, I proclaim that the noble sons and noble daughters who take up this presentation of Dharma, master it, or have faith in it are supreme among those who abide without afflictions. Why is that? Because, Blessed One, this presentation is free of all enemies—the afflictions—and unstained by all phenomena.”[F.171.b]
Then, the venerable Mahākāśyapa said to the Blessed One, “Blessed One, I proclaim that the noble sons and noble daughters who take up this presentation of Dharma, master it, or have faith in it are supreme among those who propound ascetic practices. Why is that? Because, Blessed One, this presentation of Dharma has purified all afflictions and does not have the defilement brought about by all phenomena.”
Then, the venerable Rāhula said to the Blessed One, “Blessed One, I proclaim that the noble sons and noble daughters who take up this presentation of Dharma, master it, or have faith in it are supreme among those who delight in the trainings. Why is that? Because, Blessed One, this presentation of Dharma is the perfection of all trainings.”
Then, the venerable Upāli said to the Blessed One, “Blessed One, I proclaim that the noble sons and noble daughters who take up this presentation of Dharma, master it, or have faith in it are supreme among those who uphold the vinaya. Why is that? Because, Blessed One, this presentation of Dharma causes one to eliminate all afflictions.”
Then, the venerable Ānanda spoke thus to the Blessed One: “Blessed One, I proclaim that the noble sons and noble daughters who take up this presentation of Dharma, master it, or have faith in it are supreme among the erudite. Why is that? Because, Blessed One, this presentation of Dharma is possessed of all learning.”
In this way all the great śrāvakas[F.172.a] praised this presentation of Dharma through proclamations of their own foremost quality.
The Blessed One then said to the venerable Ānanda, “This being so, Ānanda, by staying in the non-negation and non-affirmation of all phenomena, teach this enlightenment of buddhahood yourself. Teach the Dharma that there are no phenomena at all to be discarded and nothing to be attained. Teach the Dharma that there is nothing to be understood, to be abandoned, to be cultivated, to be actualized, or to be realized, no departing from saṃsāra, no going to nirvāṇa, no achieving the result of a stream enterer, of a once-returner, of a non-returner, and no achieving the result of an arhat. Why? Because, Ānanda, all phenomena are the phenomena of stream enterers, once-returners, non-returners, and arhats due to the sameness of the dharmadhātu.
“This being so, Ānanda, to individuals of the Bodhisattva Vehicle teach the Dharma that there is no passing beyond the levels of śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas, and no achieving of the qualities of a buddha. Why is that? Because, Ānanda, all phenomena are the phenomena of buddhas due to the sameness of the dharmadhātu.
“Moreover, Ānanda, to bhikṣus who engage in yogic practice with the wish to actualize arhatship, teach the Dharma that there is no abandoning of attachment, of hatred, or of ignorance.
“Teach the Dharma that the Tathāgata is not seen, that there is no Dharma to be heard, and that the Saṅgha is not to be honored.
“Ānanda, attachment, hatred, and ignorance are just not to be abandoned, because attachment, hatred, and ignorance[F.172.b] are vacuous. Ānanda, momentary things are not to be abandoned, because they do not exist.”
The venerable Ānanda then asked the Blessed One, “Blessed One, how is it that the Tathāgata is not seen? How is it that there is no Dharma to be heard? How is it that the Saṅgha is not to be honored?”
The Blessed One replied, “Ānanda, the Tathāgata is indemonstrable. He cannot be seen with the eyes. Ānanda, the Dharma is inexpressible. It cannot be heard with the ears. Ānanda, the Saṅgha is unconditioned. It cannot be honored with body, speech, or mind.”28
The venerable Ānanda then said to the Blessed One, “Blessed One, the true nature of the blessed buddhas that is difficult to realize in this way is astonishing.”
The Blessed One said, “Ānanda, it is as you say. It is difficult to realize the true nature of the blessed buddhas as presented here. Why is that? Ānanda, one must purify the mind from all afflictions, yet also neither move away from any phenomenon, nor pass beyond any phenomenon.
“Ānanda, know that those sentient beings who enter the way of the Dharma of the tathāgatas through this presentation are astonishing. Ānanda, whichever noble sons or noble daughters who have gone forth into this teaching of mine uphold this presentation of Dharma, master it, or have faith in it have properly eaten the foods of the land. They have gone forth well into the teachings of the Tathāgata. The human body they have attained has been attained well. They have subjugated the evil Māra. They have definitively overcome the conceit of thinking of themselves.[F.173.a] They have trained in regarding it as worthy of offerings. They should uphold it as worthy of honor. They should view it as a field of merit.29 Why is that? Because, Ānanda, those with manifest pride, those who apprehend a result, those who apprehend enlightenment, and those who have not served the past victors cannot accept this presentation of Dharma.”
When this presentation of Dharma was taught, the bodhisattva Dṛḍhādhyāśaya achieved the acceptance that phenomena are nonarising.
The Blessed One then smiled. As is the nature of the buddha bhagavāns, at that time myriad light rays of many colors issued forth from the Blessed One’s mouth—namely, blue, yellow, red, white, crimson, crystal, and silver. They pervaded boundless, limitless world systems with light. Having reached all the way up to the world of Brahmā they returned and circled the Blessed One three times then disappeared into the crown of the Blessed One’s head.
Then, through the blessings of the Buddha, the venerable Ānanda stood up from his seat, and, draping his upper robe over one shoulder, knelt with his right knee on the ground. With palms joined, he bowed toward the Blessed One and said, “Blessed One, it is not without cause or condition that the tathāgatas smile. What is the cause and what is the condition for your smile?”
The Blessed One replied to the venerable Ānanda, “Ānanda, two hundred arrogant bhikṣus in the saṅgha heard this teaching on the absence of arrogance, and their minds were liberated from the defilements, without further appropriation.[F.173.b] The bodhisattva Dṛḍhādhyāśaya achieved acceptance of unborn phenomena. Ānanda, the bodhisattva Dṛḍhādhyāśaya will manifestly awaken to unsurpassed, perfectly complete enlightenment after ten thousand eons. In the eon known as Illumination of All Jewels, and in the world system known as Adorned with All Flowers, he will become a tathāgata, arhat, perfectly complete buddha known as Possessing the Heart of the Glorious Jewel Lotus. His buddha field will possess an unfathomable array of good qualities. Moreover, that buddha field will be filled entirely with bodhisattvas.”
The venerable Ānanda then asked the Blessed One, “Blessed One, what is the name of this presentation of Dharma? How should we remember it?”
The Blessed One replied, “Ānanda, you should thus remember this presentation of Dharma as All Phenomena Not Moving Away. You should also remember it as The Episode of Dṛḍhādhyāśaya.”
After the Blessed One had spoken these words, the venerable Ānanda, the bodhisattva Dṛḍhādhyāśaya, the bodhisattvas, and the bhikṣus, along with everyone else in attendance and the world with its gods, humans, asuras, and gandharvas, rejoiced in what the Blessed One had said.
This completes the noble Mahāyāna sūtra “The Episode of Dṛḍhādhyāśaya.”
Translated, edited, and finalized by the Indian preceptors Surendrabodhi and Prajñāvarman, the chief Tibetan editor and translator Bandé Yeshé Dé, and others.
Garfield 1995, p. 65.
Candrakīrti also refers to the same part of the sūtra, but with an abbreviated citation, in the Prasannapadā’s first chapter (1.77), in a discussion on whether illusory phenomena can be causes of defilement or purification. See MacDonald 2015, pp. 177–80.
The seven vajra topics are (1) the Buddha, (2) the Dharma, (3) the Saṅgha, (4) the element (Skt. dhātu, Tib. khams), (5) enlightenment (Skt. bodhi, Tib. byang chub), (6) buddha qualities (Skt. guṇa, Tib. yon tan), and (7) buddha activity (Skt. samudācāra, Tib. sangs rgyas kyi ’phrin las).
[Ratnagotravibhāga-] Mahāyānottaratantraśāstravyākhyā (Toh 4025). The only extant Sanskrit text and the Chinese include both verses and prose commentary. Chinese tradition, somewhat indirectly, attributes the treatise as a whole not to Maitreya-Asaṅga but to one *Sāramati.
Sthīrādhyāśayaparivarta is attested in the Degé, Dodedrak, Lhasa, Phajoding Ogmin, Phajoding Khangzang, and Ragya Kangyurs, while Dṛḍhādhyāśayaparivarta is attested in the Chizhi, Dongkarla, Phukdrak, Gondhla, Gangteng, Hemis, Namgyal Collection, Neyphuk, Tashiyangtse, Ulaanbaatar, Stok, and Shey Kangyurs.
The following Kangyurs lack a Sanskrit title: Berlin, Choné, Lithang, London, Narthang, Peking 1737 (Qianlong), and Urga.
Denkarma F.297.b.5; see also Hermann-Pfandt (118), pp. 66–67. Phangthangma, p. 9. Chomden Rigpai Raltri, F.12.a ; see also Schaeffer and van der Kuijp (6.45), p. 126. Butön, F.151.a (p. 933); see also Nishioka (304), p. 74. It seems most likely that the length reported in these lists is an error propagated from one to the others, but a possibility remains either that they are referring to a different work, or that the present text is an extract from a longer original. Hermann-Pfandt points out that no longer text of similar title has been identified anywhere. The catalogs of the Degé (F.130.a) and Narthang (F.98.a) Kangyurs both mention the discrepancy in length compared to the early inventories, and while the Degé catalog mentions that early inventories described the text as having two chapters (although in fact none of the extant inventories do so), the Narthang catalog implies that it still does have two chapters (although this is not the case in any extant version, including the one in the Narthang). Some of the inventories and some of the catalogs misspell brtan pa in the title as bstan pa.
Skt. niḥsaraṇa in the Prasannapadā citation, and Tib. nges par ’byung ba in the Prasannapadā Tibetan translation. All Kangyurs, however, read simply ’byung ba.
Where the Tibetan reads gsad/bsad here, “killed,” the citation in the Prasannapadā, according to most Sanskrit manuscripts in Kosaka’s (2021, p. 79) critical Sanskrit edition, read viruddha (“opposed,” “hindered,” “arrested”). However, one manuscript gives vibuddha (“awake”), which seems unlikely based on the context, although gsad/bsad could be taken as misspellings of sad (“to awaken”).
Degé and Stok both read des bdag gsad du ’ong ngo. The citation in the Prasannapadā in Kosaka’s (2021, p. 79) critical Sanskrit edition reads sa mā māṃ jīvitād vyaparopayet.
The Sanskrit of the corresponding phrase in the citation in the Prasannapadā is rather different and matches better the phrases that follow for hatred and ignorance: sarvabālapṛthagjanā rāgakoṭiṃ virāgakoṭim aprajānanto rāgakoṭibhayabhītā virāgakoṭiṃ niḥsaraṇaṃ paryeṣante (“Not knowing that the extent of desire is the extent of freedom from desire, they are afraid of the perils of the extent of desire and seek escape from the extent of freedom from desire.”). The Tibetan, not only in all Kangyurs but also in the Tibetan translation of the Prasannapadā, omits that mention of “the extent of freedom from desire.” See Kosaka (2021), pp. 80 and 117.
Translated according to the Degé and most other Kangyurs, which read shes shing rtogs bzhin du. Narthang and Lhasa Kangyurs here read shes shing dogs bzhin du, “knowing but doubting,” but the former reading seems preferable, being the better parallel to the tathāgata “knowing and seeing” (mkhyen cing gzigs bzhin du) in the next paragraph.
Stok Palace gives bsregs pa (“has burned up”) instead of sreg pa (“is the burning up”), which matches the usage of past participles in some of the other proclamations.
This statement by the Buddha is cited in the Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā (Toh 4025, folio 74.b.6-7) as the scriptural basis for the first three of the “seven vajra points” (the Buddha, Dharma, and Saṅgha) that provide the Ratnagotravibhāga’s (Toh 4024) structure. The citation in the Sanskrit of the Vyākhyā reads: anidarśano hyānanda tathāgataḥ | sa na śakyaścakṣuṣā draṣṭum | anabhilāpyo hyānanda dharmaḥ | sa na śakyaḥ karṇena śrotum | asaṃskṛto hyānanda saṅghaḥ | sa na śakyaḥ kāyena vā cittena vā paryupāsitum (Johnston 1950:2). Note that the present text of the sūtra itself differs from the citation in the Sanskrit, and also the Tibetan of the Vyākhyā in the Tengyur, in including “speech” in the final phrase.
The Stok Palace manuscript reads “they should be held as worthy of honor. They should be viewed as a field of merit,” referring to the noble sons and daughters themselves.
A term meaning acceptance, forbearance, or patience. As the third of the six perfections, patience is classified into three kinds: the capacity to tolerate abuse from sentient beings, to tolerate the hardships of the path to buddhahood, and to tolerate the profound nature of reality. As a term referring to a bodhisattva’s realization, dharmakṣānti (chos la bzod pa) can refer to the ways one becomes “receptive” to the nature of Dharma, and it can be an abbreviation of anutpattikadharmakṣānti, “forbearance for the unborn nature, or nonproduction, of dharmas.”
The name of the world system in which the bodhisattva Dṛḍhādhyāśaya will become enlightened.
The essentially pure nature of mind is obscured and afflicted by various psychological defilements, which destroy the mind’s peace and composure and lead to unwholesome deeds of body, speech, and mind, acting as causes for continued existence in saṃsāra. Included among them are the primary afflictions of desire (rāga), anger (dveṣa), and ignorance (avidyā). It is said that there are eighty-four thousand of these negative mental qualities, for which the eighty-four thousand categories of the Buddha’s teachings serve as the antidote.
Kleśa is also commonly translated as “negative emotions,” “disturbing emotions,” and so on. The Pāli kilesa, Middle Indic kileśa, and Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit kleśa all primarily mean “stain” or “defilement.” The translation “affliction” is a secondary development that derives from the more general (non-Buddhist) classical understanding of √kliś (“to harm,“ “to afflict”). Both meanings are noted by Buddhist commentators.
A major śrāvaka disciple and personal attendant of the Buddha Śākyamuni during the last twenty-five years of his life. He was a cousin of the Buddha (according to the Mahāvastu, he was a son of Śuklodana, one of the brothers of King Śuddhodana, which means he was a brother of Devadatta; other sources say he was a son of Amṛtodana, another brother of King Śuddhodana, which means he would have been a brother of Aniruddha).
Ānanda, having always been in the Buddha’s presence, is said to have memorized all the teachings he heard and is celebrated for having recited all the Buddha’s teachings by memory at the first council of the Buddhist saṅgha, thus preserving the teachings after the Buddha’s parinirvāṇa. The phrase “Thus did I hear at one time,” found at the beginning of the sūtras, usually stands for his recitation of the teachings. He became a patriarch after the passing of Mahākāśyapa.
His principal quality, according to The Episode of Dṛḍhādhyāśaya, is erudition.
According to Buddhist tradition, one who is worthy of worship (pūjām arhati), or one who has conquered the enemies, the mental afflictions (kleśa-ari-hata-vat), and reached liberation from the cycle of rebirth and suffering. It is the fourth and highest of the four fruits attainable by śrāvakas. Also used as an epithet of the Buddha.
An optional set of thirteen practices that monastics can adopt in order to cultivate greater detachment. They consist in (1) wearing patched robes made from discarded cloth rather than from cloth donated by laypeople; (2) wearing only three robes; (3) going for alms; (4) not omitting any house while on the alms round, rather than begging only at those houses known to provide good food; (5) eating only what can be eaten in one sitting; (6) eating only food received in the alms bowl, rather than more elaborate meals presented to the saṅgha; (7) refusing more food after indicating one has eaten enough; (8) dwelling in the forest; (9) dwelling at the root of a tree; (10) dwelling in the open air, using only a tent made from one’s robes as shelter; (11) dwelling in a charnel ground; (12) being satisfied with whatever dwelling one has; and (13) sleeping in a sitting position without ever lying down.
In Buddhist literature, this is an epithet applied to buddhas, most often to Śākyamuni. The Sanskrit term generally means “possessing fortune,” but in specifically Buddhist contexts it implies that a buddha is in possession of six auspicious qualities (bhaga) associated with complete awakening. The Tibetan term—where bcom is said to refer to “subduing” the four māras, ldan to “possessing” the great qualities of buddhahood, and ’das to “going beyond” saṃsāra and nirvāṇa—possibly reflects the commentarial tradition where the Sanskrit bhagavat is interpreted, in addition, as “one who destroys the four māras.” This is achieved either by reading bhagavat as bhagnavat (“one who broke”), or by tracing the word bhaga to the root √bhañj (“to break”).
Dhyāna is defined as one-pointed abiding in an undistracted state of mind, free from afflicted mental states. Four states of dhyāna are identified as being conducive to birth within the form realm. In the context of the Mahāyāna, it is the fifth of the six perfections. It is commonly translated as “concentration,” “meditative concentration,” and so on.
A synonym for emptiness, the ultimate reality, or the ultimate nature of things. This term is interpreted variously due to the many different meanings of dharma as element, phenomena, reality, truth, and/or the teaching.
The central figure of the Episode of Dṛḍhādhyāśaya (Dṛḍhādhyāśayaparivarta). A bodhisattva monk who is primed for a teaching on nonduality and subsequently receives a prophecy for full enlightenment. See note 1.
The Tibetan ’jigs pa and the Sanskrit bhaya both carry the dual meaning of fear and peril.
One of the three poisons (dug gsum) along with aversion, or hatred, and attachment, or desire, which perpetuate the sufferings of cyclic existence. It is the obfuscating mental state which obstructs an individual from generating knowledge or insight, and it is said to be the dominant characteristic of the animal world in general. Commonly rendered as confusion, delusion, and ignorance, or bewilderment.
The supernatural powers of a śrāvaka correspond to the first abhijñā: “Being one he becomes many, being many he becomes one; he becomes visible, invisible; goes through walls, ramparts and mountains without being impeded, just as through air; he immerses himself in the earth and emerges from it as if in water; he goes on water without breaking through it, as if on [solid] earth; he travels through the air crosslegged like a winged bird; he takes in his hands and touches the moon and the sun, those two wonderful, mighty beings, and with his body he extends his power as far as the Brahma world” (Śūraṃgamasamādhisūtra, trans. Lamotte 2003).
The great supernatural powers (maharddhi) of bodhisattvas are “causing trembling, blazing, illuminating, rendering invisible, transforming, coming and going across obstacles, reducing or enlarging worlds, inserting any matter into one’s own body, assuming the aspects of those one frequents, appearing and disappearing, submitting everyone to one’s will, dominating the supernormal power of others, giving intellectual clarity to those who lack it, giving mindfulness, bestowing happiness, and finally, emitting beneficial rays” (Śūraṃgamasamādhisūtra, trans. Lamotte 2003).
A śrāvaka monk among the foremost disciples of the Buddha. His principal quality, according to The Episode of Dṛḍhādhyāśaya, is his devotion to ascetic practices.
One of the principal śrāvaka disciples of the Buddha, paired with Śāriputra. He was renowned for his miraculous powers. His family clan was descended from Mudgala, hence his name Maudgalyāyana, “the son of Mudgala’s descendants.” Respectfully referred to as Mahāmaudgalyāyana, “Great Maudgalyāyana.”
His principal quality, according to The Episode of Dṛḍhādhyāśaya, is magical power.
Māra, literally “death” or “maker of death,” is the name of the deva who tried to prevent the Buddha from achieving awakening, the name given to the class of beings he leads, and also an impersonal term for the destructive forces that keep beings imprisoned in saṃsāra:
(1) As a deva, Māra is said to be the principal deity in the Heaven of Making Use of Others’ Emanations (paranirmitavaśavartin), the highest paradise in the desire realm. He famously attempted to prevent the Buddha’s awakening under the Bodhi tree—see The Play in Full (Toh 95), 21.1—and later sought many times to thwart the Buddha’s activity. In the sūtras, he often also creates obstacles to the progress of śrāvakas and bodhisattvas. (2) The devas ruled over by Māra are collectively called mārakāyika or mārakāyikadevatā, the “deities of Māra’s family or class.” In general, these māras too do not wish any being to escape from saṃsāra, but can also change their ways and even end up developing faith in the Buddha, as exemplified by Sārthavāha; see The Play in Full (Toh 95), 21.14 and 21.43. (3) The term māra can also be understood as personifying four defects that prevent awakening, called (i) the divine māra (devaputramāra), which is the distraction of pleasures; (ii) the māra of Death (mṛtyumāra), which is having one’s life interrupted; (iii) the māra of the aggregates (skandhamāra), which is identifying with the five aggregates; and (iv) the māra of the afflictions (kleśamāra), which is being under the sway of the negative emotions of desire, hatred, and ignorance.
Variously translated as “son of the lineage,” “son of good family,” “honored sir,” and so forth.
The third of the four attainments of śrāvakas, this term refers to a person who will no longer take rebirth in the desire realm (kāmadhātu), but either be reborn in the Pure Abodes (śuddhāvāsa) or reach the state of an arhat in their current lifetime. (Provisional 84000 definition. New definition forthcoming.)
One who has achieved the second of the four levels of attainment on the śrāvaka path and who will attain liberation after only one more birth. (Provisional 84000 definition. New definition forthcoming.)
The name of the buddha that the bodhisattva Dṛḍhādhyāśaya will become in the future.
Literally, “buddha for oneself” or “solitary realizer.” Someone who, in his or her last life, attains awakening entirely through their own contemplation, without relying on a teacher. Unlike the awakening of a fully realized buddha (samyaksambuddha), the accomplishment of a pratyekabuddha is not regarded as final or ultimate. They attain realization of the nature of dependent origination, the selflessness of the person, and a partial realization of the selflessness of phenomena, by observing the suchness of all that arises through interdependence. This is the result of progress in previous lives but, unlike a buddha, they do not have the necessary merit, compassion or motivation to teach others. They are named as “rhinoceros-like” (khaḍgaviṣāṇakalpa) for their preference for staying in solitude or as “congregators” (vargacārin) when their preference is to stay among peers.
A śrāvaka monk among the foremost disciples of the Buddha and also his son. His principal quality, according to The Episode of Dṛḍhādhyāśaya, is delighting in the trainings.
The ancient capital of Magadha prior to its relocation to Pāṭaliputra during the Mauryan dynasty, Rājagṛha is one of the most important locations in Buddhist history. The literature tells us that the Buddha and his saṅgha spent a considerable amount of time in residence in and around Rājagṛha—in nearby places, such as the Vulture Peak Mountain (Gṛdhrakūṭaparvata), a major site of the Mahāyāna sūtras, and the Bamboo Grove (Veṇuvana)—enjoying the patronage of King Bimbisāra and then of his son King Ajātaśatru. Rājagṛha is also remembered as the location where the first Buddhist monastic council was held after the Buddha Śākyamuni passed into parinirvāṇa. Now known as Rajgir and located in the modern Indian state of Bihar.
A śrāvaka monk among the foremost disciples of the Buddha. His principal quality, according to The Episode of Dṛḍhādhyāśaya, is concentration.
Though often specifically reserved for the monastic community, this term can be applied to any of the four Buddhist communities—monks, nuns, laymen, and laywomen—as well as to identify the different groups of practitioners, like the community of bodhisattvas or the community of śrāvakas. It is also the third of the Three Jewels (triratna) of Buddhism: the Buddha, the Teaching, and the Community.
One of the principal śrāvaka disciples of the Buddha, he was renowned for his discipline and for having been praised by the Buddha as foremost of the wise (often paired with Maudgalyāyana, who was praised as foremost in the capacity for miraculous powers). His father, Tiṣya, to honor Śāriputra’s mother, Śārikā, named him Śāradvatīputra, or, in its contracted form, Śāriputra, meaning “Śārikā’s Son.”
His principal quality, according to The Episode of Dṛḍhādhyāśaya, is wisdom.
The absence of dualistic perception that assigns marks or signs to perceived phenomena. Signlessness is one of the three gateways to liberation, along with emptiness and wishlessness.
The Sanskrit term śrāvaka, and the Tibetan nyan thos, both derived from the verb “to hear,” are usually defined as “those who hear the teaching from the Buddha and make it heard to others.” Primarily this refers to those disciples of the Buddha who aspire to attain the state of an arhat seeking their own liberation and nirvāṇa. They are the practitioners of the first turning of the wheel of the Dharma on the four noble truths, who realize the suffering inherent in saṃsāra and focus on understanding that there is no independent self. By conquering afflicted mental states (kleśa), they liberate themselves, attaining first the stage of stream enterers at the path of seeing, followed by the stage of once-returners who will be reborn only one more time, and then the stage of non-returners who will no longer be reborn into the desire realm. The final goal is to become an arhat. These four stages are also known as the “four results of spiritual practice.”
One who has achieved the first level of attainment on the path of the śrāvakas, and who has entered the “stream” of practice that leads to nirvāṇa. (Provisional 84000 definition. New definition forthcoming.)
A śrāvaka monk among the foremost disciples of the Buddha. His principal quality, according to The Episode of Dṛḍhādhyāśaya, is abiding without afflictions.
The real nature, true quality, or condition of things. Throughout Buddhist discourse this term is used in two distinct ways. In one, it designates the relative nature that is either the essential characteristic of a specific phenomenon, such as the heat of fire and the moisture of water, or the defining feature of a specific term or category. The other very important and widespread way it is used is to designate the ultimate nature of all phenomena, which cannot be conveyed in conceptual, dualistic terms and is often synonymous with emptiness or the absence of intrinsic existence.
A śrāvaka monk among the foremost disciples of the Buddha. His principal quality, according to The Episode of Dṛḍhādhyāśaya, is upholding the vinaya.
A synonym for “buddha.”
The Gṛdhrakūṭa, literally Vulture Peak, was a hill located in the kingdom of Magadha, in the vicinity of the ancient city of Rājagṛha (modern-day Rajgir, in the state of Bihar, India), where the Buddha bestowed many sūtras, especially the Great Vehicle teachings, such as the Prajñāpāramitā sūtras. It continues to be a sacred pilgrimage site for Buddhists to this day.
’phags pa lhag pa’i bsam pa brtan pa’i le’u zhes bya ba theg pa chen po’i mdo (Āryasthīrādhyāśayaparivartanāmamahāyānasūtra). Toh 224, Degé Kangyur vol. 63 (mdo sde, dza), folios 164.a–173.b.
’phags pa lhag pa’i bsam pa brtan pa’i le’u zhes bya ba theg pa chen po’i mdo. bka’ ’gyur (dpe bsdur ma) [Comparative Edition of the Kangyur], krung go’i bod rig pa zhib ’jug ste gnas kyi bka’ bstan dpe sdur khang (The Tibetan Tripitaka Collation Bureau of the China Tibetology Research Center). 108 volumes. Beijing: krung go’i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang (China Tibetology Publishing House), 2006–9, vol. 63, pp. 443–469.
’phags pa lhag pa’i bsam pa brtan pa’i le’u zhes bya ba theg pa chen po’i mdo. Stok Palace Kangyur vol. 72 (mdo sde, zha), folios 207.b–222.a.
Maitreya. theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma’i bstan bcos (Mahāyānottaratantraśāstraratnagotravibhāga). Toh 4024. Degé Tengyur vol. 123 (sems tsam, phyi), folios 54.b–73.a.
Asaṅga. theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma’i bstan bcos rnam par bshad pa (*Mahāyānottaratantraśāstravyākhyā). Toh 4025. Degé Tengyur vol. 123 (sems tsam, phyi), folios 74.b–129.a.
Chomden Rigpai Raltri (bcom ldan rig pa’i ral gri). bstan pa rgyas pa rgyan gyi nyi ’od . BDRC MW1CZ1041 (scanned dbu med MS from Drépung).
Nāgārjuna. dbu ma rtsa ba’i tshig le’ur byas pa shes rab ces bya ba (Prajñānāmamūlamadhyamakakārikā). Toh 3824. Degé Tengyur vol. 96 (dbu ma, tsa), folios 1.b–19.a. English translation in Garfield 1995.
Candrakirti. dbu ma rtsa ba’i ’grel pa tshig gsal ba zhes bya ba (Mūlamadhyamakavṛttiprasannapadā). Toh 3860. Degé Tengyur vol. 102 (dbu ma, ’a), folios 1.b–200.a.
Anonymous. rgyud bla ma’i tshig don mam par ’grel pa (Commentary on the Meaning of the Words). In dpal mnga’ bdag sgra sgyur mar pa lo tsa ba chos kyi bio gros kyi gsung ’bum, 1:414–522. skyo brag dgon pa (Nangchen), China: mnyam med dvags brgyud rgyal ba *ba rom pa’i chos mdzod chen mo’i dpe tshogs, 2011. English translation in Brunnhölzl, 2014.
Phangthangma (dkar chag ’phang thang ma). Beijing: mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 2003.
Brunnhölzl, Karl. When the Clouds Part: The “Uttaratantra” and Its Meditative Tradition as a Bridge between Sūtra and Tantra. Boston: Snow Lion, 2014.
Garfield, Jay L. The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way: Nagarjuna’s Mulamadhyamakakarika. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.
Herrmann-Pfandt, Adelheid. Die lHan kar ma: ein früher Katalog der ins Tibetische übersetzten buddhistischen Texte. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2008.
Johnston, Edward H., ed. “The Ratnagotravibhāga Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra.” Patna: Bihar Research Society, 1950.
Kosaka, Arihiro. “The Mādhyamikas on False Conception (viparyāsa) and Emptiness (śūnyatā): A Study of Chapter Twenty-Three (Viparyāsaparīkṣā) of the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā and Prasannapadā.” PhD diss., University of Tsukuba, 2021.
Macdonald, Anne, ed. and trans. In Clear Words: The Prasannapadā, Chapter One (2 vols), BKGA 86. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akadamie der Wissenschaften (VÖAW), 2015.
Schaeffer, Kurtis R., and Leonard W. J. van der Kuijp. An Early Tibetan Survey of Buddhist Literature: The Bstan pa rgyas pa rgyan gyi nyi ’od of Bcom ldan ral gri. Harvard Oriental Series 64. Cambridge (MA) and London: Harvard University Press, 2009.
